| Literature DB >> 24349512 |
Djamal-Dine Djeddi1, Guy Kongolo2, Erwan Stéphan-Blanchard3, Mohamed Ammari3, André Léké4, Stéphane Delanaud3, Véronique Bach3, Frederic Telliez3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been suggested that disturbed activity of the autonomic nervous system is one of the factors involved in gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in adults. We sought to establish whether transient ANS dysfunction (as assessed by heart rate variability) is associated with the occurrence of GER events in neonates during sleep and wakefulness.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24349512 PMCID: PMC3862728 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083464
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
GER data detected by MII-pH monitoring for the 19 neonates.
| Recording time, min | 760 ± 130 |
|
| |
| RI (pH-monitoring), % of total time | 4 ± 4 |
| Mean number of GER-pH events, n | 14 ± 15 |
| GER-pH frequency, h-1 | 1.3 ± 1.7 |
|
| |
| BEI, % of total time | 1.0 ± 0.7 |
| Mean number of GER-imp events, n | 41 ± 25 |
| GER-imp frequency, h-1 | 3.6 ± 2.1 |
Values are quoted as the mean ± SD. RI: reflux index, BEI: bolus exposure index.
Sleep data for the 19 neonates.
|
| |
| Sleep period time, min | 728 ± 114 |
| Wakefulness duration, min. | 180 ± 78 |
| Total sleep time, min. | 535 ± 82 |
|
| |
| Active sleep, % | 61 ± 11 |
| Indeterminate sleep, % | 8 ± 5 |
| Quiet sleep, % | 31 ± 9 |
| Frequency of sleep state changes, min-1 | 0.10 ± 0.03 |
Values are quoted as the mean ± SD.
Reflux data as a function of vigilance state for the 19 neonates (χ2 test was used to test for an influence of the vigilance state on the distribution of GER events).
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total duration, min | 2886 | 5237 | 2637 | 10760 | P=0.0003 |
| GER-pH events, n | 23 | 43 | 39 | 105 | P<0.05 |
| GER-imp events, n | 358 | 226 | 26 | 610 | P<0.001 |
| acid GER-imp | 59 | 53 | 2 | P<0.001 | |
| weakly acid GER-imp | 285 | 172 | 24 | P<0.001 | |
| alkaline GER-imp | 14 | 1 | 0 | P<0.001 | |
| Total GER events, n (%) | 381 (53.4%) | 269 (37.6%) | 65 (9%) | 715 | P<0.001 |
| GER frequency (h-1) | 7.9 | 3.1 | 1.5 | P<0.001 | |
| GER events considered in the HRV analysis | 196 | 131 | 13 | 340 |
Time-domain HRV parameter values during W and AS in three periods: a GER-free period (control), a period immediately prior to GER (prior) and a period during GER (during) (a two-way analysis of variance for repeated measures were used to test the differences between the control, prior and during periods as a function of the vigilance state).
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.415±0.059 | 0.415±0.056 | 0.409±0.050 | 0.417±0.061 | 0.425±0.065 | 0.420±0.059 | 0.060 | NS |
|
| 0.071±0.045 | 0.060±0.042 | 0.076±0.052 | 0.057±0.039 | 0.052±0.034 | 0.059±0.039 | <0.001 | 0.022 |
|
| 0.011±0.016 | 0.008±0.016 | 0.013±0.021 | 0.006±0.012 | 0.005±0.009 | 0.007±0.016 | 0.001 | 0.038 |
|
| 6.2±7.9 | 4.4±5.7 | 5.6±7.0 | 4.0±6.6 | 3.7±8.0 | 4.6±9.0 | 0.019 | NS |
Data were adjusted for multiple testing with the Tukey-Kramer test.
Values are quoted as the mean ± SD.
Frequency-domain HRV parameter values during W and AS in three periods: a GER-free period (control), a period immediately prior to GER (prior) and a period during GER (during) (a two-way analysis of variance for repeated measures were used to test the differences between the control, prior and during periods as a function of the vigilance state).
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 0.069±0.069 | 0.055±0.058 | 0.074±0.068 | 0.054±0.061 | 0.050±0.052 | 0.056±0.059 | 0.008 | 0.060 |
|
| 0.026±0.024 | 0.021±0.020 | 0.027±0.023 | 0.021±0.021 | 0.020±0.020 | 0.022±0.022 | 0.016 | NS |
|
| 0.028±0.038 | 0.018±0.031 | 0.028±0.037 | 0019±0.031 | 0014±0.023 | 0016±0.026 | <0.001 | 0.025 |
|
| 62 ±19 | 68 ±21 | 63 ±20 | 65±20 | 70±19 | 68 ±20 | 0.030 | 0.024 |
|
| 38 ±19 | 32 ±21 | 37 ±20 | 35±20 | 30±19 | 32 ±20 | 0.030 | 0.024 |
|
| 3.2±3.5 | 4.2±4.3 | 3.3±3.5 | 3.7±4.4 | 4.9±5.3 | 4.9±6.5 | 0.007 | 0.045 |
Data were adjusted for multiple testing with the Tukey-Kramer test.
Values are quoted as the mean ± SD.
Figure 1Effect of the period on normalized values (mean ± SEM) of the power spectra in the low- (LFnu) and high-frequency (HFnu) bands.
*P<0.05, **P<0.01. (pairwise multiple comparison procedures were used to test the differences between the control, prior and during periods. Data were adjusted for multiple testing with the Tukey-Kramer test).
Figure 2Effect of the period on the sympathovagal balance (LF/HF) (mean ± SEM).
*P<0.05. (pairwise multiple comparison procedures were used to test the differences between the control, prior and during periods. Data were adjusted for multiple testing with the Tukey-Kramer test).