OBJECTIVES: Gastric barostat studies are increasingly being performed, but their reproducibility and the most suitable study protocol have not been determined. The aim of this study was to verify the reproducibility of gastric sensitivity and accommodation testing in healthy and in dyspeptic subjects, and to compare stepwise and double random staircase distensions. METHODS: A total of 13 dyspeptic patients and 25 healthy control subjects underwent two successive studies. Sensory thresholds were assessed on a same-day/different-days protocol, using a stepwise (11/14 healthy subjects and 11/13 patients) or a double random staircase inflation (11/21 healthy subjects). In 10 healthy subjects, both methods were compared. Gastric accommodation was measured on different days in 13 patients and nine healthy subjects. Data (mean +/- SEM) were compared using the paired t test, and individual variability was expressed as the percent coefficient of variation. RESULTS: In healthy subjects, the thresholds for first perception and for discomfort were highly reproducible (p > 0.05) and the pressure thresholds showed a lower degree of variability than the volumes. Pressure thresholds quantified by stepwise showed lower variability than double random staircase inflation. In the patients, the sensory thresholds were unchanged between the sessions on the same and on different days (p > 0.05). Gastric accommodation also showed excellent reproducibility for both dyspeptic patients and healthy control subjects (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both in dyspeptic patients and in healthy control subjects, gastric sensitivity and accommodation quantified by isobaric distensions show excellent reproducibility. Pressure and volume thresholds both are well reproducible, but the former shows less variability. Finally, the simplest stepwise protocol is better than the double random staircase to assess the gastric sensitivity to distension.
OBJECTIVES: Gastric barostat studies are increasingly being performed, but their reproducibility and the most suitable study protocol have not been determined. The aim of this study was to verify the reproducibility of gastric sensitivity and accommodation testing in healthy and in dyspeptic subjects, and to compare stepwise and double random staircase distensions. METHODS: A total of 13 dyspeptic patients and 25 healthy control subjects underwent two successive studies. Sensory thresholds were assessed on a same-day/different-days protocol, using a stepwise (11/14 healthy subjects and 11/13 patients) or a double random staircase inflation (11/21 healthy subjects). In 10 healthy subjects, both methods were compared. Gastric accommodation was measured on different days in 13 patients and nine healthy subjects. Data (mean +/- SEM) were compared using the paired t test, and individual variability was expressed as the percent coefficient of variation. RESULTS: In healthy subjects, the thresholds for first perception and for discomfort were highly reproducible (p > 0.05) and the pressure thresholds showed a lower degree of variability than the volumes. Pressure thresholds quantified by stepwise showed lower variability than double random staircase inflation. In the patients, the sensory thresholds were unchanged between the sessions on the same and on different days (p > 0.05). Gastric accommodation also showed excellent reproducibility for both dyspeptic patients and healthy control subjects (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both in dyspeptic patients and in healthy control subjects, gastric sensitivity and accommodation quantified by isobaric distensions show excellent reproducibility. Pressure and volume thresholds both are well reproducible, but the former shows less variability. Finally, the simplest stepwise protocol is better than the double random staircase to assess the gastric sensitivity to distension.
Authors: Satish S C Rao; Anjana Kumar; Brent Harris; Bruce Brown; Konrad S Schulze Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2005-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742