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.

Mechanisms of abdominal distension in severe intestinal dysmotility: abdomino-thoracic response to gut retention.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that abdominal distension in patients with functional gut disorders is due to a paradoxical diaphragmatic contraction without major increment in intraabdominal volume. Our aim was to characterize the pattern of gas retention and the abdomino-thoracic mechanics associated with abdominal distension in patients with intestinal dysmotility. METHODS: In 15 patients with manometrically proven intestinal dysmotility, two abdominal CT scans were performed: one during basal conditions and other during an episode of severe abdominal distension. In 15 gender- and age-matched healthy controls, a basal scan was performed. KEY RESULTS: In basal conditions, patients exhibited more abdominal gas than healthy subjects, particularly in the small bowel, and the volume significantly increased during an episode of distension. During episodes of abdominal distension, the increase in abdominal content was associated with increased girth and antero-posterior abdominal diameter, as well as a cephalic displacement of the diaphragm, which reduced the height of the lung. The consequent reduction in the air volume of the lung was attenuated by an increase in the antero-posterior diameter of the chest. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Abdominal distension in patients with severe intestinal dysfunction is related to marked pooling of gut contents, particularly in the small bowel. This increase in content is accommodated within the abdominal cavity by a global and coordinated abdomino-phreno-thoracic response, involving an accommodative ascent of the diaphragm and a compensatory expansion of the chest wall.

[Self-care measures recorded for acute pathology in primary care]. / Medidas de autocuidado registradas ante patologías agudas en atención primaria.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify and describe the self-treatment existing among users requesting a consultation about an illness which had commenced in the previous 15 days. DESIGN: Observational prospective study. SETTING: Primary care in a semi-rural environment. Family Medicine Unit in Valls (Tarragona). PATIENTS AND OTHERS PARTICIPANTS: The study included all those people who attended the Unit, whose illness had begun during the previous 15 days and who were attending with this illness for the first time. The following variables were recorded: gender, age, symptomatology and whether they had taken self-treatment measures (self-medication and/or non-pharmacological measures). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 375 patients were recorded: 59.5% women and 40.5% men. The most common symptoms were pain (50.1%) and temperature (15.2%). 69.9% of the patients (CI 4.75) had treated themselves: there were no significant differences as regards age and gender. An analysis shows that 18.7% used nonpharmacological measures; 75.9% took some drug; and 5.4% used non-pharmacological measures plus a drug. The most used pharmacological groups were analgesics and antipyretics (40.9%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Self-treatment is very common in the Primary Care environment. Professionals and health planners will have to bear this very much in mind, in order both to strengthen its positive implications and correct any negative aspects found.