OBJECTIVES: It remains unclear whether postprandial symptom profiles in patients with visceral hypersensitivity and in those with impaired fundic accommodation differ. Therefore, we evaluated the postprandial symptoms in functional dyspepsia (FD) patients classified according to proximal stomach function. In addition, the effect of gastric relaxation induced by sumatriptan on postprandial symptoms was studied in FD patients with impaired fundic accommodation. METHODS: Twenty-five healthy volunteers (HVs) and 44 FD patients filled out a disease-specific questionnaire (Nepean Dyspepsia Index) and underwent a gastric barostat study to evaluate visceral sensitivity, meal-induced fundic relaxation, and postprandial symptoms. Postprandial symptoms evoked by a drink test or reported during the barostat study were compared between FD patients subdivided according to the underlying pathophysiological mechanism. Finally, the effect of sumatriptan on postprandial symptoms evoked by a drink test was investigated in HVs and in FD patients with impaired fundic accommodation. RESULTS: There was no clear relationship between any of the 15 Nepean Dyspepsia Index symptoms and proximal stomach function. Postprandial symptoms evoked during the barostat study or after the drink tests were significantly higher in FD patients than in HVs; however, no clear differences in symptom profile could be demonstrated between the different subclasses of FD. Sumatriptan did not affect the maximal ingested volume or the postprandial symptoms in HVs or FD patients after a drink test. CONCLUSIONS: No clear relationship could be demonstrated between postprandial symptoms and proximal stomach function.
OBJECTIVES: It remains unclear whether postprandial symptom profiles in patients with visceral hypersensitivity and in those with impaired fundic accommodation differ. Therefore, we evaluated the postprandial symptoms in functional dyspepsia (FD) patients classified according to proximal stomach function. In addition, the effect of gastric relaxation induced by sumatriptan on postprandial symptoms was studied in FDpatients with impaired fundic accommodation. METHODS: Twenty-five healthy volunteers (HVs) and 44 FDpatients filled out a disease-specific questionnaire (Nepean Dyspepsia Index) and underwent a gastric barostat study to evaluate visceral sensitivity, meal-induced fundic relaxation, and postprandial symptoms. Postprandial symptoms evoked by a drink test or reported during the barostat study were compared between FDpatients subdivided according to the underlying pathophysiological mechanism. Finally, the effect of sumatriptan on postprandial symptoms evoked by a drink test was investigated in HVs and in FDpatients with impaired fundic accommodation. RESULTS: There was no clear relationship between any of the 15 Nepean Dyspepsia Index symptoms and proximal stomach function. Postprandial symptoms evoked during the barostat study or after the drink tests were significantly higher in FDpatients than in HVs; however, no clear differences in symptom profile could be demonstrated between the different subclasses of FD. Sumatriptan did not affect the maximal ingested volume or the postprandial symptoms in HVs or FDpatients after a drink test. CONCLUSIONS: No clear relationship could be demonstrated between postprandial symptoms and proximal stomach function.