Colonic content: effect of diet, meals, and defecation.

BACKGROUND: The metabolic activity of colonic microbiota is influenced by diet; however, the relationship between metabolism and colonic content is not known. Our aim was to determine the effect of meals, defecation, and diet on colonic content. METHODS: In 10 healthy subjects, two abdominal MRI scans were acquired during fasting, 1 week apart, and after 3 days on low- and high-residue diets, respectively. With each diet, daily fecal output and the number of daytime anal gas evacuations were measured. On the first study day, a second scan was acquired 4 hours after a test meal (n=6) or after 4 hours with nil ingestion (n=4). On the second study day, a scan was also acquired after a spontaneous bowel movement. RESULTS: On the low-residue diet, daily fecal volume averaged 145 ± 15 mL; subjects passed 10.6 ± 1.6 daytime anal gas evacuations and, by the third day, non-gaseous colonic content was 479 ± 36 mL. The high-residue diet increased the three parameters to 16.5 ± 2.9 anal gas evacuations, 223 ± 19 mL fecal output, and 616 ± 55 mL non-gaseous colonic content (P<.05 vs low-residue diet for all). On the low-residue diet, non-gaseous content in the right colon had increased by 41 ± 11 mL, 4 hours after the test meal, whereas no significant change was observed after 4-hour fast (-15 ± 8 mL; P=.006 vs fed). Defecation significantly reduced the non-gaseous content in distal colonic segments. CONCLUSION & INFERENCES: Colonic content exhibits physiologic variations with an approximate 1/3 daily turnover produced by meals and defecation, superimposed over diet-related day-to-day variations.

Colonic content in health and its relation to functional gut symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Gut content may be determinant in the generation of digestive symptoms, particularly in patients with impaired gut function and hypersensitivity. Since the relation of intraluminal gas to symptoms is only partial, we hypothesized that non-gaseous component may play a decisive role. METHODS: Abdominal computed tomography scans were evaluated in healthy subjects during fasting and after a meal (n = 15) and in patients with functional gut disorders during basal conditions (when they were feeling well) and during an episode of abdominal distension (n = 15). Colonic content and distribution were measured by an original analysis program. KEY RESULTS: In healthy subjects both gaseous (87 ± 24 mL) and non-gaseous colonic content (714 ± 34 mL) were uniformly distributed along the colon. In the early postprandial period gas volume increased (by 46 ± 23 mL), but non-gaseous content did not, although a partial caudad displacement from the descending to the pelvic colon was observed. No differences in colonic content were detected between patients and healthy subjects. Symptoms were associated with discrete increments in gas volume. However, no consistent differences in non-gaseous content were detected in patients between asymptomatic periods and during episodes of abdominal distension. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: In patients with functional gut disorders, abdominal distension is not related to changes in non-gaseous colonic content. Hence, other factors, such as intestinal hypersensitivity and poor tolerance of small increases in luminal gas may be involved.

Intestinal gas content and distribution in health and in patients with functional gut symptoms.

BACKGROUND: The precise relation of intestinal gas to symptoms, particularly abdominal bloating and distension remains incompletely elucidated. Our aim was to define the normal values of intestinal gas volume and distribution and to identify abnormalities in relation to functional-type symptoms. METHODS: Abdominal computed tomography scans were evaluated in healthy subjects (n = 37) and in patients in three conditions: basal (when they were feeling well; n = 88), during an episode of abdominal distension (n = 82) and after a challenge diet (n = 24). Intestinal gas content and distribution were measured by an original analysis program. Identification of patients outside the normal range was performed by machine learning techniques (one-class classifier). Results are expressed as median (IQR) or mean ± SE, as appropriate. KEY RESULTS: In healthy subjects the gut contained 95 (71, 141) mL gas distributed along the entire lumen. No differences were detected between patients studied under asymptomatic basal conditions and healthy subjects. However, either during a spontaneous bloating episode or once challenged with a flatulogenic diet, luminal gas was found to be increased and/or abnormally distributed in about one-fourth of the patients. These patients detected outside the normal range by the classifier exhibited a significantly greater number of abnormal features than those within the normal range (3.7 ± 0.4 vs 0.4 ± 0.1; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The analysis of a large cohort of subjects using original techniques provides unique and heretofore unavailable information on the volume and distribution of intestinal gas in normal conditions and in relation to functional gastrointestinal symptoms.