4.8 Article

Impaired drinking capacity in patients with functional dyspepsia: Relationship with proximal stomach function

Journal

GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 121, Issue 5, Pages 1054-1063

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/gast.2001.28656

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & Aims: Impaired fundic: accommodation to a meal and hypersensitivity to distention are increasingly recognized as important mechanisms underlying functional dyspepsia (FD). In the present study, we evaluated whether a drink test can predict such abnormalities and thus represent a noninvasive tool to study proximal stomach motor function. Methods: Healthy volunteers (HV), nonconsulters with mild dyspeptic symptoms (MS), and patients with FD filled out a disease-specific questionnaire and underwent a drink test with either water or with a high calorie fluid. The maximal ingested volume and the subsequent symptoms were meticulously recorded. In addition, all subjects underwent a gastric barostat study assessing meal-induced relaxation and sensation to distention. Results. Drinking capacity was not significantly related to any particular dyspeptic symptom. FD were able to consume less water (893 +/- 70 ml.) and calorie liquid (767 +/- 50 mL) compared with HV (water, 1764 +/- 120 mL; caloric liquid, 1308 +/- 96 mL) or MS (water, 1645 +/- 120 mL; caloric liquid, 973 +/- 45 mL). Approximately half of the FD had an abnormal water or Nutridrink test compared with 9% of MS and 4% of HV. Furthermore, FD developed. significantly more symptoms than MS or HV after both drink tests. The drinking capacity did not predict impaired fundic accommodation or visceral hypersensitivity. Conclusions. FD, but not MS, have an impaired drinking capacity to both water and a nutrient liquid. The drinking capacity is not related to a specific dyspeptic symptom and does not predict proximal stomach motor function.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available