Literature DB >> 2364840

Comparison of effects of upright versus supine body position and liquid versus solid bolus on esophageal pressures in normal humans.

V W Sears1, J A Castell, D O Castell.   

Abstract

New studies monitoring ambulatory esophageal pressures during food ingestion often compare results to normal values obtained from supine liquid swallows. We compared distal esophageal peristaltic and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressures in 15 normal subjects during six liquid swallows in the upright and supine positions, and six solid (small marshmallow) swallows in upright position. LES pressures were significantly (P less than 0.05) higher supine than upright but no differences were noted in LES pressure, relaxation, and duration of relaxation between upright solid and liquid swallows. Distal peristaltic wave velocities were faster upright than supine. Peristaltic wave amplitudes, durations, and DP/DT were significantly (P less than 0.05) greater in supine than in upright position. Atypical wave forms, defined as nontransmitted, simultaneous, and simultaneous/repetitive, increased in the upright position compared to supine (P less than 0.01), and during solid vs liquid swallows (P less than 0.05). These results indicate that body position substantially affects normal distal esophageal peristalsis and LES pressure and that "abnormal" wave forms occur more frequently during swallowing solids than liquids in the upright position. Conclusions regarding "abnormal" motility over prolonged periods and during food ingestion in patients should be tempered by these findings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2364840     DOI: 10.1007/bf01536799

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  12 in total

1.  The gastroesophageal sphincter in healthy human beings.

Authors:  C F CODE; F E FYKE; J F SCHLEGEL
Journal:  Gastroenterologia       Date:  1956

2.  Pressure profile of esophageal peristalsis in normal humans as measured by direct intraesophageal transducers.

Authors:  T J Humphries; D O Castell
Journal:  Am J Dig Dis       Date:  1977-07

3.  Effects of alterations in bolus viscosity on esophageal peristalsis in humans.

Authors:  C P Dooley; B Schlossmacher; J E Valenzuela
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1988-01

4.  The effect of body position on lower esophageal sphincter pressure.

Authors:  J C Babka; G W Hager; D O Castell
Journal:  Am J Dig Dis       Date:  1973-05

5.  Esophageal manometry in 95 healthy adult volunteers. Variability of pressures with age and frequency of "abnormal" contractions.

Authors:  J E Richter; W C Wu; D N Johns; J N Blackwell; J L Nelson; J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1987-06       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Alteration of esophageal peristalsis by body position.

Authors:  M D Kaye; R M Wexler
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1981-10       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  The lower esophageal sphincter. Physiologic and clinical aspects.

Authors:  D O Castell
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1975-09       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Computer analysis of human esophageal peristalsis and lower esophageal sphincter pressure. II. An interactive system for on-line data collection and analysis.

Authors:  J A Castell; D O Castell
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1986-11       Impact factor: 3.199

9.  Esophageal motility during food ingestion: a physiologic test of esophageal motor function.

Authors:  M H Mellow
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 22.682

10.  Water swallows versus food ingestion as manometric tests for esophageal dysfunction.

Authors:  M L Allen; W C Orr; M H Mellow; M G Robinson
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  13 in total

1.  Comparison of esophageal motility in patients with solid dysphagia and mixed dysphagia.

Authors:  Chien-Lin Chen; William C Orr
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.438

2.  Solid swallowing versus water swallowing: manometric study of dysphagia.

Authors:  S Keren; E Argaman; M Golan
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Systematic comparison of conventional oesophageal manometry with oesophageal motility while eating bread.

Authors:  P J Howard; L Maher; A Pryde; R C Heading
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Proximal esophageal contractions in laryngectomized patients.

Authors:  Roberto Oliveira Dantas; Lilian Neto Aguiar-Ricz; Ingrid Gielow; Francisco Veríssimo Mello Filho; Rui Celso Martins Mamede
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2005       Impact factor: 3.438

5.  Does diet affect values obtained during prolonged ambulatory pressure monitoring.

Authors:  S Langevin; S F DeNuna; D O Castell
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 3.199

6.  Esophageal swallowing phase assessed by audiosignal recording: relationship with manometry in gastroesophageal reflux disease patients.

Authors:  M Boiron; P Rouleau; B Atipo; L Picon; E H Metman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  The effect of a sitting vs supine posture on normative esophageal pressure topography metrics and Chicago Classification diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders.

Authors:  Y Xiao; A Read; F Nicodème; S Roman; P J Kahrilas; J E Pandolfino
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2012-08-16       Impact factor: 3.598

8.  Effect of Body Position on Pharyngeal Swallowing Pressures Using High-Resolution Manometry.

Authors:  Sarah P Rosen; Suzan M Abdelhalim; Corinne A Jones; Timothy M McCulloch
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.438

9.  Optimizing the swallow protocol of clinical high-resolution esophageal manometry studies.

Authors:  Y Xiao; F Nicodème; P J Kahrilas; S Roman; Z Lin; J E Pandolfino
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 3.598

10.  Influence of bolus consistency and position on esophageal high-resolution manometry findings.

Authors:  Anita Bernhard; Daniel Pohl; Michael Fried; Donald O Castell; Radu Tutuian
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-10-12       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.