Anxiety can significantly explain bolus perception in the context of hypotensive esophageal motility: Results of a large multicenter study in asymptomatic individuals.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have not been able to correlate manometry findings with bolus perception. The aim of this study was to evaluate correlation of different variables, including traditional manometric variables (at diagnostic and extreme thresholds), esophageal shortening, bolus transit, automated impedance manometry (AIM) metrics and mood with bolus passage perception in a large cohort of asymptomatic individuals. METHODS: High resolution manometry (HRM) was performed in healthy individuals from nine centers. Perception was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale. Anxiety was evaluated using Hospitalized Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD). Subgroup analysis was also performed classifying studies into normal, hypotensive, vigorous, and obstructive patterns. KEY RESULTS: One hundred fifteen studies were analyzed (69 using HRM and 46 using high resolution impedance manometry (HRIM); 3.5% swallows in 9.6% of volunteers were perceived. There was no correlation of any of the traditional HRM variables, esophageal shortening, AIM metrics nor bolus transit with perception scores. There was no HRM variable showing difference in perception when comparing normal vs extreme values (percentile 1 or 99). Anxiety but not depression was correlated with perception. Among hypotensive pattern, anxiety was a strong predictor of variance in perception (R2 up to .70). CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES: Bolus perception is less common than abnormal motility among healthy individuals. Neither esophageal motor function nor bolus dynamics evaluated with several techniques seems to explain differences in bolus perception. Different mechanisms seem to be relevant in different manometric patterns. Anxiety is a significant predictor of bolus perception in the context of hypotensive motility.

The Chicago Classification 3.0 Results in More Normal Findings and Fewer Hypotensive Findings With No Difference in Other Diagnoses.

OBJECTIVES: High-resolution manometry (HRM) is the preferred method for the evaluation of motility disorders. Recently, an update of the diagnostic criteria (Chicago 3.0) has been published. The aim of this study was to compare the performance criteria of Chicago version 2.0 (CC2.0) vs. 3.0 (CC3.0) in a cohort of healthy volunteers and symptomatic patients. METHODS: HRM studies of asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals from several centers of Spain and Latin America were analyzed using both CC2.0 and CC3.0. The final diagnosis was grouped into hierarchical categories: obstruction (achalasia and gastro-esophageal junction obstruction), major disorders (distal esophageal spasm, absent peristalsis, and jackhammer), minor disorders (failed frequent peristalsis, weak peristalsis with small or large defects, ineffective esophageal motility, fragmented peristalsis, rapid contractile with normal latency and hypertensive peristalsis) and normal. The results were compared using McNemar's and Kappa tests. RESULTS: HRM was analyzed in 107 healthy volunteers (53.3% female; 18-69 years) and 400 symptomatic patients (58.5% female; 18-90 years). In healthy volunteers, using CC2.0 and CC3.0, obstructive disorders were diagnosed in 7.5% and 5.6%, respectively, major disorders in 1% and 2.8%, respectively, minor disorders in 25.2% and 15%, respectively, and normal in 66.4% and 76.6%, respectively. In symptomatic individuals, using CC2.0 and CC3.0, obstructive disorders were diagnosed in 11% and 11.3%, respectively, major disorders in 14% and 14%, respectively, minor disorders in 33.3% and 24.5%, respectively, and normal in 41.8% and 50.3%, respectively. In both groups of individuals, only an increase in normal and a decrease in minor findings using CC3.0 were statistically significant using McNemar's test. DISCUSSIONS: CC3.0 increases the number of normal studies when compared with CC2.0, essentially at the expense of fewer minor disorders, with no significant differences in major or obstructive disorders. As the relevance of minor disorders is questionable, our data suggest that CC3.0 increases the relevance of abnormal results.

Normal values of esophageal pressure responses to a rapid drink challenge test in healthy subjects: results of a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple water swallow is increasingly used as a complementary challenge test in patients undergoing high-resolution manometry (HRM). Our aim was to establish the range of normal pressure responses during the rapid drink challenge test in a large population of healthy subjects. METHODS: Pressure responses to a rapid drink challenge test (100 or 200 mL of water) were prospectively analyzed in 105 healthy subjects studied in nine different hospitals from different countries. Esophageal motility was assessed in all subjects by solid-state HRM. In 18 subjects, bolus transit was analyzed using concomitant intraluminal impedance monitoring. KEY RESULTS: A virtually complete inhibition of pressure activity was observed during multiple swallow: Esophageal body pressure was above 20 mm Hg during 1 (0-8) % and above 30 mm Hg during 1 (0-5) % of the swallow period, and the pressure gradient across the esophagogastric junction was low (-1 (-7 to 4) mm Hg). At the end of multiple swallow, a postswallow contraction was evidenced in only 50% of subjects, whereas the remaining 50% had non-transmitted contractions. Bolus clearance was completed after 7 (1-30) s after the last swallow, as evidenced by multichannel intraluminal impedance. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The range of normal pressure responses to a rapid drink challenge test in health has been established in a large multicenter study. Main responses are a virtually complete inhibition of esophageal pressures with a low-pressure gradient across esophagogastric junction. This data would allow the correct differentiation between normal and disease when using this test.

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.

Abdominal accommodation induced by meal ingestion: differential responses to gastric and colonic volume loads.

BACKGROUND: Using an experimental model of colonic gas infusion, we previously showed that the abdominal walls adapt to its content by an active phenomenon of abdominal accommodation. We now hypothesized that abdominal accommodation is a physiological phenomenon, and aimed to confirm that it can be induced by ingestion of a meal; a secondary aim was to determine whether the response to gut filling is region-specific. METHODS: In healthy subjects (n = 24) a nutrient test meal was administered until tolerated at a rate of 50 mL min(-1). Electromyographic (EMG) activity of the anterior wall (upper and lower rectus, external and internal oblique) was measured via four pairs of surface electrodes, and EMG activity of the diaphragm via intraluminal electrodes on an esophageal tube. To address the secondary aim, the response to gastric filling was compared with that induced by colonic filling (1440 mL 30 min(-1) anal gas infusion; n = 8). KEY RESULTS: Participants tolerated 927 ± 66 mL of meal (450-1500 mL). Meal ingestion induced progressive diaphragmatic relaxation (EMG reduction by 16 ± 2%; P < 0.01) and selective contraction of the upper abdominal wall (24 ± 2% increase in activity of the upper rectus and external oblique; P < 0.01 for both), with no significant changes in the lower rectus (4 ± 2%) or internal oblique (5 ± 3%). Colonic gas infusion induced a similar response, but with an overall contraction of the anterior wall. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Meal ingestion induces a metered and region-specific response of the abdominal walls to accommodate the volume load. Abnormal abdominal accommodation could be involved in postprandial bloating.

Accommodation of the abdomen to its content: integrated abdomino-thoracic response.

BACKGROUND: We previously showed that changes in intra-abdominal content induce a volume-dependent muscular response of the anterior abdominal wall and the diaphragm. We aimed to determine the contribution of the thorax to abdominal accommodation and the influence of the intra-abdominal expansion rate. METHODS: Gas (1440 mL total load) was infused into the colon of nine healthy subjects, while abdomino-thoracic perimeters (by tape measure), electromyography (EMG) activity of the diaphragm (via six ring electrodes over an esophageal tube in the hiatus), intercostals and anterior abdominal wall (via five pairs of surface electrodes) and the position of the diaphragm by ultrasonography were measured. Infusion rates of 24, 48, and 96 mL min(-1) were tested on separate days. KEY RESULTS: Gas infusion induced anterior abdominal wall contraction (18 ± 1% EMG increment; P < 0.001) with relatively modest girth increment (4.9 ± 0.9 mm; P = 0.001), diaphragmatic relaxation (by 15 ± 1%; P < 0.001) with cephalad displacement (by 23 ± 6 mm; P = 0.005), and intercostal contraction (by 19 ± 2%; P < 0.001) with increased thoracic perimeter (by 2.0 ± 0.5 mm; P = 0.009). Responses were similar with the three infusion rates. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Accommodation of intra-abdominal loads involves a volume-related integrated abdomino-thoracic response regardless of the expansion rate.

Postoperative pain after haemorrhoidectomy: role of impaired evacuation.

AIM: We hypothesized that obstructive defaecation is associated with more postoperative pain after haemorrhoidectomy. METHOD: Fifty patients with grade IV haemorrhoids were included in a prospective study. Impaired evacuation was defined as the inability to evacuate a rectal balloon. Perianal sensitivity was evaluated by means of an algometer, and anxiety and depression were assessed by the hospital anxiety and depression (HAD) scale. Over the first 10 days after a Milligan-Morgan haemorrhoidectomy, the following parameters were measured on daily questionnaires: pain (associated with and unrelated to defaecation by means of visual analogue scales), number of bowel movements, faecal consistency and analgesic requirement on demand (tramadol 50 mg p.o., number of doses). Results are expressed as median and interquartile range or mean ± SE. RESULTS: Patients with impaired evacuation (14 women, eight men; age range 28-61 years) experienced more postoperative pain than patients with nonimpaired evacuation (eight women, 20 men; age range 24-70 years): 3.2 (2.1) vs 2.1 (1.8) defaecatory pain, respectively (P = 0.045), and 2.4 (2.3) vs 1.7 (2.3) nondefecatory pain, respectively (P = 0.048). There was no difference between the groups regarding stool consistency, number of bowel movements [12.5 (7.3) vs 15.5 (7.2), respectively; NS] and analgesic requirement [1.0 (6.1) vs 1.0 (5.2) extra doses on demand, respectively; NS] during the 10 postoperative days. No differences related to age, sex, HAD scores or perianal sensitivity were found. CONCLUSION: Impaired anal evacuation is predictive of postoperative pain after haemorrhoidectomy.