SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • gastric accommodation;
  • gastric MRI;
  • gastric ultrasound;
  • nutrient drinking tests;
  • single photon emission computed tomography

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

Impaired gastric accommodation is an important cause of functional dyspepsia. Currently available tests that evaluate gastric accommodation provide relevant physiological information, but they pose technical difficulties and their clinical impact remains controversial. Gastric barostat remains the gold standard, but it is an invasive procedure. In recent years, emerging modalities including single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging have been developed to measure gastric volumes and hold promise as alternative methods of assessing gastric accommodation non-invasively. Studies are underway to validate these techniques with recent data proving the performance characteristics of SPECT. The non-invasive nutrient drink test measures satiety scores as a surrogate marker of gastric accommodation and remains controversial. More recently, intragastric monitoring has been proposed as yet another non-invasive modality to assess gastric accommodation. Each of these different modalities brings its associated advantages and disadvantages, as is discussed in this review. Ongoing studies to validate these new techniques are in progress and are likely to lead to further progress in neurogastroenterology.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a clinical syndrome that is characterized by persistent or recurrent upper abdominal pain or discomfort in the absence of evidence of organic disease that is likely to explain the symptoms.1 The pathophysiology of FD is heterogeneous, and suggested mechanisms include delayed gastric emptying, hypersensitivity to gastric distension, impaired gastric accommodation, Helicobacter pylori infection, altered duodenal response to acid and lipids, altered duodenojejunal motility and central nervous system dysfunction.2

The accommodation reflex is an important mechanism of normal gastric physiology. It is a vagally mediated reflex that occurs postprandially, resulting in a reduction of gastric tone and an increase in compliance in response to food intake, allowing for an increase in proximal gastric volume without a corresponding rise in pressure.3 Under normal physiological conditions, adaptive relaxation of the proximal stomach is not perceived. Several studies have shown that impaired gastric accommodation to a meal is a major pathophysiological mechanism in FD,4–8 resulting in early satiety and weight loss.4

Identifying patients with impaired gastric accommodation is therefore important in understanding the underlying pathophysiology of FD and has been used in evaluating the effects of various pharmacological agents on proximal gastric function in drug therapy trials.

Gastric Barostat

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

The gastric barostat was the first method to measure gastric accommodation,3,9,10 with excellent correlation and reproducibility in healthy subjects and dyspeptic patients (R = 0.71 and 0.74, respectively).11 To date, it is generally regarded as the gold standard9,11 to investigate changes in proximal stomach function and for which all other techniques need to be compared for validation.12 The barostat consists of a double-lumen polyvinyl tube with an adherent plastic bag with a maximum capacity of 1000–1200 mls.9,11 The polyvinyl tube is connected to a barostat device which allows isobaric or isovolumic expansion of the gastric balloon. By measuring changes in the volume of air in the compliant bag that is maintained at a constant pressure, changes in gastric tone as well as gastric sensitivity to distension can be studied. Barostat studies have shown that the accommodation response is impaired up to 40% of patients with FD.4 In addition, the potential of various drugs to modulate the accommodation response in acute studies involving healthy volunteers and in dyspeptic subjects has also been studied with the barostat.

However, it should be emphasized that the procedure is invasive, time consuming, and uncomfortable for patients, limiting its feasibility in routine clinical practice. In addition, the presence of a gastric balloon has been shown to interfere with normal gastric physiology, as the direct stimulus imposed by the balloon on the proximal stomach wall may alter intragastric distribution of the meal and result in exaggeration of antral relaxation.13 These limitations have served as an impetus to develop various alternative non-invasive diagnostic techniques which assess change in gastric volume as a reflection of gastric accommodation. In recent years, volume-based methods have been proposed to measure gastric capacity.

Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

The use of SPECT to quantitate gastric accommodation was first proposed and subsequently validated by the Mayo group.14 This technique combines imaging of the gastric wall using intravenously administered 99mTc pertechnetate (taken up by gastric parietal and mucin-secreting cells) with a non-invasive SPECT gamma camera. Three-dimensional reconstruction of data is performed using commercially available software. The image analysis obtained provides a measure of total gastric volume and assesses gastric response to a meal. Compared to the barostat, SPECT detects changes in postprandial gastric volumes and is less suitable for detecting changes in gastric tone and assessing the gastric sensory response. An early validation study by Bouras et al.15 reported a good correlation (R2 = 0.7) of mean volumes of postprandial to fasting volumes measured concurrently by SPECT and barostat, respectively. However, a subsequent validation study16 where subjects underwent SPECT and barostat on separate occasions showed poor correlation between the two techniques with respect to meal induced accommodation. In addition, meal induced accommodation assessed by SPECT did not differ from ingested meal volumes. The authors concluded that in the absence of a distending pressure, gastric volumes determined by SPECT scanning reflect ingested volumes rather than gastric relaxation and this is likely to account for the poor correlation between the two techniques.16

Disadvantages of SPECT include a high exposure to ionizing radiation, and the need to perform the study in a supine position within a short interval after 99mTc pertechnetate isotope injection. However, the less invasive nature of SPECT and the reduced interference with normal gastric physiology are considerable main advantages of SPECT over the barostat.

In this issue of the journal, Breen et al.17 have further validated the performance characteristics of SPECT based on a retrospective analysis of studies performed in subjects who had undergone prior research studies. The intraday and day-to-day variabilities of gastric accommodation were quantitated by determining the coefficient of variation (COV = 100 x SD/mean, expressed in %) for fasting gastric volumes, mean postprandial volumes and accommodation volumes in 433 subjects. The COV in a subgroup of 47 healthy volunteers who had undergone repeated studies was studied to evaluate the variations within subjects.

The results from this study showed similar inter and intra-individual coefficients of variation (COVINTER and COVINTRA) between and within individuals for fasting, postprandial and accommodation volumes, respectively. Additionally, they did not observe any significant differences by gender or patient subgroups. The findings from Breen et al. serve to establish the reliability of measuring gastric volumes by SPECT in the largest number of patients to date. Indeed, in a recent study in 20 healthy volunteers18 who underwent a total of three SPECT studies at least 3 days apart at the same and different times of the day, the intraclass correlation coefficient values of gastric accommodation for the same time, first different time and second different times studied were 0.681, 0.630, and 0.774, respectively, demonstrating good reproducibility.

Single photon emission computed tomography has demonstrated reliability17 and reproducibility18 and appears to be an emerging tool as a non-invasive modality to measure gastric volumes. However, further validation studies are required before it transcends from a research to clinical setting.

Gastric ultrasound

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

Conventional ultrasound imaging has been used to estimate gastric volumes by multiplying the proximal gastric area that is measured in a sagittal plane (area from the top fundus margin to 7 cm aborad) with the proximal gastric diameter that is measured in a frontal oblique plane.19 A more sophisticated technique of three-dimensional ultrasound (3DUS)20,21 uses specialized software to calculate images of transverse and longitudinal planes on the basis of the information in the sagittal images and the measured position and orientation of the ultrasound probe. The regions of interest (ROIs) are constructed using the inner layer of the gastric wall, measuring gastric volumes. After delineation of the gastric wall in the sagittal plane, the computer calculates ROIs in the other two planes and creates a three-dimensional image of the stomach. The total gastric volume is calculated using this 3D reconstruction. This sophisticated technique is highly operator dependent and anatomical structures and gas interposition may post technical difficulties. Direct comparison of proximal gastric volumes assessed with the 3DUS and gastric barostat showed a good correlation value of 0.55.22

Both two-and three-dimensional ultrasonography are non-invasive and do not pose a radiation burden. However, anatomical structures and gas interposition may pose technical difficulties in this operator dependent technique. It remains an investigational tool and has not been validated against the barostat.

Magnetic resonance imaging

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

Similar to ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging is a non-invasive means of measuring fasting and postprandial gastric volumes through three-dimensional reconstruction of the stomach, and does not pose a radiation burden. Magnetic resonance imaging has mainly been used to assess intragastric meal distribution and gastric emptying. The need to perform the study in a supine position and the long procedural time within the confinements of the MRI scanner are its main limitations. It remains a research tool and has thus far not been well-validated for the assessment of gastric accommodation.23,24

Drinking tests

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

The sophistication and costs involved in the above mentioned diagnostic tools has largely restricted the use of these modern day equipment to a few specialized centers. Whilst ongoing research studies are being conducted to validate these tools, a number of cheaper and non-invasive modalities have been well-described.

The nutrient drinking test was designed to assess the symptom of early satiety and thus serve as a surrogate marker of proximal stomach function, hence predicting impaired gastric accommodation.4,25 This test is based on the assumption that impaired accommodation results in a limited gastric volume capacity and this is reflected in the maximum tolerated ingested volume. Reproducibility and correlation with barostat measurement of gastric accommodation in a small group of patients was demonstrated.4

Although initially designed to serve as a simple test to differentiate FD patients from normal, it has become a source of both knowledge and contradiction.26 Different tests based on water or nutrient drinks, coupled with different drinking rates have led to contradictory results.4,25,27 A study by Gonenne et al.28 showed a poor correlation between maximum tolerated volume in a nutrient-drinking test and SPECT measurement of gastric volumes and thus caution the utility of using maximal tolerated volumes as a marker of gastric volumes.

Intragastric pressure

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

More recently, Janssens et al.29 studied intragastric pressure (IGP) recordings in healthy volunteers during nutrient drink ingestion. Intragastric pressure recordings decreased initially and subsequently increased gradually after nutrient-drink infusion. Post hoc analysis showed significant correlations between IGP and satiation scores, indicating that IGP is a determinant of satiation. The findings from this study hold promise to IGP recordings as a minimally invasive and more physiological alternative to gastric barostat measurements.

Summary

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References

The difficulties encountered with measuring gastric accommodation present an ongoing challenge in neurogastroenterology research. The limitations of the gastric barostat have paved the way for numerous new developments. A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the various methods that have been studied to date is illustrated in Table 1. Research is underway to further validate the novel volume-based methods including SPECT, ultrasound and gastric MRI in tertiary centers. Clearly the costs and sophistication of such techniques are the main limiting factors. On the other end of the spectrum, simple to perform nutrient drink tests and a more recently described IGP recordings may prove a useful and feasible alternative in routine clinical practice.

Table 1.   Summary of advantages and disadvantages of various techniques used in evaluating gastric accommodation
 Parameter(s) measuredAdvantageDisadvantagesQuality of evidence
  1. +Investigational (No validation studies available).

  2. ++Limited validation studies.

  3. +++Gold standard.

Barostat studiesProximal gastric volume at fixed pressureGold standard Well-validated Measures gastric tone, compliance and sensitivityInvasive Non-physiological+++
UltrasoundGastric volumes, gastric emptyingNon-invasive No radiation Low costUser dependent Technical difficulties+
Magnetic resonance imagingTotal and regional gastric volumeNon-invasive No radiationSupine position required during study High costs+
Single photon emission computed tomographyTotal and regional gastric volumeNon-invasiveSupine position required during study Radiation burden High costs++
Nutrient drinking testsGastric sensation and fillingNon-invasive Easy to perform, low costLimited reproducibility data++
Intragastric pressure monitoringGastric tone, satiation scoresSimple to perform, low costLimited data+

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Gastric Barostat
  5. Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography
  6. Gastric ultrasound
  7. Magnetic resonance imaging
  8. Drinking tests
  9. Intragastric pressure
  10. Summary
  11. References
  • 1
    Tack J, Talley NJ, Camilleri M et al. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 146679.
  • 2
    Tack J, Bisschops R, Sarnelli G. Pathophysiology and treatment of functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 123955.
  • 3
    Azpiroz F, Malagelada JR. Physiological variations in canine gastric tone measured by an electronic barostat. Am J Physiol 1985; 248: G22937.
  • 4
    Tack J, Piessevaux H, Coulie B, Caenepeel P, Janssens J. Role of impaired gastric accommodation to a meal in functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 1998; 115: 134652.
  • 5
    Ricci R, Bontempo I, La Bella A et al. Dyspeptic symptoms and gastric antrum distribution. An ultrasonographic study. Ital J Gastroenterol 1987; 19: 2157.
  • 6
    Hausken T, Berstad A. Wide gastric antrum inpatients with non-ulcer dyspepsia. Effect of cisapride. Scand J Gastroenterol 1992; 27: 42732.
  • 7
    Troncon LEA, Bennett RJM, Ahluwalia NK et al. Abnormal distribution of food during gastric emptying in functional dyspepsia patients. Gut 1994; 35: 32732.
  • 8
    Salet GAM, Samsom M, Roelofs JMM et al. Response to gastric distention in functional dyspepsia. Gut 1998; 42: 8239.
  • 9
    Azpiroz F, Malagelada JR. Gastric tone measured by an electronic barostat in health and postsurgical gastroparesis. Gastroenterology 1987; 92: 93443.
  • 10
    Azpiroz F, Malagelada JR. Isobaric intestinal distension in humans: sensorial relay and reflex gastric relaxation. Am J Physiol 1990; 258: G2027.
  • 11
    Sarnelli G, Vos R, Cuomo R et al. Reproducibility of gastric barostat studies in healthy controls and in dyspeptic patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 104753.
    Direct Link:
  • 12
    De Schepper HU, Cremonini F, Chitkara D, Camilleri M. Assessment of gastric accommodation: overview and evaluation of current methods. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2004; 16: 27585.
  • 13
    Mundt MW, Hausken T, Samsom M. Effect of intragastric barostat bag on proximal and distal gastric accommodation in response to liquid meal. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2002; 283: G6816.
  • 14
    Kuiken SD, Samsom M, Camilleri M et al. Development of a test to measure gastric accommodation in humans. Am J Physiol 1999; 277: G121721.
  • 15
    Bouras EP, Delgado-Aros S, Camilleri M et al. SPECT imaging of the stomach: comparison with barostat, and effects of sex, age, body mass index, and fundoplication. Gut 2002; 51: 7816.
  • 16
    Van den Elzen BD, Bennink RJ, Wieringa RE, Tytgat GNJ, Boeckxstaens GE. Fundic accommodation assessed by SPECT scanning: comparison with the gastric barostat. Gut 2003; 52: 154854.
  • 17
    Breen M, Camilleri M, Burton D, Ziensmeister A. Performance characteristics of the measurement of gastric volume using single photon emission computed tomography. Neurogastro Motil 2011; 23: 30815.
  • 18
    Vasavid P, Chaiwatanarata T, Gonlachanvit S. The reproducibility of 99mTc-Pertechnetate single photon emission computed tomography (SPET) for measurement of gastric accommodation in healthy humans: evaluation of the test results performed at the same time and different times of the day. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010; 16: 4016.
  • 19
    Gilja OH, Hausken T, Odegaard S, Berstad A. Monitoring postprandial size of the proximal stomach by ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 1995; 14: 819.
  • 20
    Mundt MW, Hausken T, Smout AJ, Samsom M. Relationship between gastric accommodation and gastrointestinal sensations in healthy volunteers. A study using barostat technique and two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography. Dig Dis Sci 2005; 50: 165460.
  • 21
    Tefera S, Gilja OH, Olafsdottir E et al. Intragastric maldistribution of a liquid meal in patients with reflux oesophagitis assessed by three dimensional ultrasonography. Gut 2002; 50: 1538.
  • 22
    Mundt MW, Samsom M. Fundal dysaccommodation in functional dyspepsia: head-to-head comparison between the barostat and three-dimensional ultrasonographic technique. Gut 2006; 55: 172530.
  • 23
    Marciani L, Gowland PA, Spiller RC et al. Effect of meal viscosity and nutrient on satiety, intragastric dilution, and emptying assessed by MRI. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2001; 280: G122733.
  • 24
    Kunz P, Feinle C, Schwizer W, Fried M, Boesiger P. Assessment of gastric motor function during the emptying of solid and liquid meals in humans by MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 9: 7580.
  • 25
    Tack J, Caenepeel P, Piessevaux H, Cuomo R, Janssens J. Assessment of meal induced gastric accommodation by a satiety drinking test in health and in severe functional dyspepsia. Gut 2003; 52: 12717.
  • 26
    Mimidis K. Drinking tests in functional dyspepsia: what do they really measure? Neurogastroenterol Motil 2007; 19: 94750.
  • 27
    Boeckxstaens GE, Hirsch DP, van den Elzen BDJ, Heisterkamp SH, Tytgat GNJ. Impaired drinking capacity in patients with functional dyspepsia: relationship with proximal stomach function. Gastroenterology 2001; 121: 105463.
  • 28
    Gonenne J, Castillo EJ, Camilleri M et al. Does the nutrient drink test accurately predict postprandial gastric volume in health and community dyspepsia? Neurogastroenterol Motil 2005; 17: 4450.
  • 29
    Janssen P, Vershueren S, Hyunh G, Vos R, Van Oudenhove L, Tack J. Intragastric pressure during food intake: a physiological and minimally invasive method to assess gastric accommodation. Neurogastro Motil 2011; 23: 31622.