INTRODUCTION: According to the Rome III Criteria, functional dyspepsia (FD) is classified as postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and epigastric pain syndrome (EPS). On the other hand, the satiety test (ST) has been used to evaluate gastric accommodation and emptying, distinguishing healthy individuals from those with dyspepsia. AIMS: To determine whether the ST can distinguish dyspeptic individuals from healthy ones and to evaluate its usefulness in differentiating the two FD subtypes. METHODS: Adults with FD were consecutively enrolled in a cross-sectional study within the time frame of August 2011 and October 2012. Healthy subjects participated as controls. The ST consisted of the intake of a nutritional supplement (Fortisip®, Nutricia Bagó®) at a constant speed; satiety was graded at 5-minute intervals (1 to 5 points). Intake was suspended when the maximum score was reported. The total ingested volume and caloric intake was recorded and the Mann-Whitney U test was used in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: The study included 39 dyspeptic patients and 20 control individuals. The patients were predominantly women (84.6 vs. 25%; p < 0.0001) and they were similar in age (39.59 ± 13.53 vs. 34.70 ± 9.85 years) and BMI (24.32 ± 3.52 vs. 25.82 ± 3.34 kg/m2) with respect to the controls. The FD subtype percentages were PDS: 61%, EPS: 31%, and Mixed syndrome: 8%. There was a lower ingested volume and caloric intake on the part of the dyspeptic patients (185 vs. 300 ml and 277 vs. 520 Kcal, respectively. Both: P<.001). No differences in the ST were observed between the two pure dyspepsia subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: There was a difference in the ST between healthy individuals and those with dyspepsia, but the ingested volume and caloric intake in the two FD subtypes were similar.
INTRODUCTION: According to the Rome III Criteria, functional dyspepsia (FD) is classified as postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and epigastric pain syndrome (EPS). On the other hand, the satiety test (ST) has been used to evaluate gastric accommodation and emptying, distinguishing healthy individuals from those with dyspepsia. AIMS: To determine whether the ST can distinguish dyspeptic individuals from healthy ones and to evaluate its usefulness in differentiating the two FD subtypes. METHODS: Adults with FD were consecutively enrolled in a cross-sectional study within the time frame of August 2011 and October 2012. Healthy subjects participated as controls. The ST consisted of the intake of a nutritional supplement (Fortisip®, Nutricia Bagó®) at a constant speed; satiety was graded at 5-minute intervals (1 to 5 points). Intake was suspended when the maximum score was reported. The total ingested volume and caloric intake was recorded and the Mann-Whitney U test was used in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: The study included 39 dyspeptic patients and 20 control individuals. The patients were predominantly women (84.6 vs. 25%; p < 0.0001) and they were similar in age (39.59 ± 13.53 vs. 34.70 ± 9.85 years) and BMI (24.32 ± 3.52 vs. 25.82 ± 3.34 kg/m2) with respect to the controls. The FD subtype percentages were PDS: 61%, EPS: 31%, and Mixed syndrome: 8%. There was a lower ingested volume and caloric intake on the part of the dyspeptic patients (185 vs. 300 ml and 277 vs. 520 Kcal, respectively. Both: P<.001). No differences in the ST were observed between the two pure dyspepsia subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: There was a difference in the ST between healthy individuals and those with dyspepsia, but the ingested volume and caloric intake in the two FD subtypes were similar.