4.4 Article

Reproducibility of gastric emptying assessed with scintigraphy in patients with upper GI symptoms

Journal

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
Volume 30, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13365

Keywords

diabetes mellitus; gastric emptying; gastroparesis; reproducibility; scintigraphy

Funding

  1. USPHS NIH Grant [R01 DK068055]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundThe reproducibility of gastric emptying (GE) measured with scintigraphy in patients is poorly understood. Our aims were to assess the intra and inter-individual reproducibility of these parameters in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. MethodsSixty patients (21 diabetics, 39 non-diabetics) with upper gastrointestinal symptoms underwent scintigraphic-assessment of GE of a solid meal (296kcal, 30% fat) over 4hours on two occasions at an average interval of 15days. The concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), intra and inter-individual coefficients of variation (COV) of GE endpoints were analyzed. ResultsThe GE t(1/2) was 1348minutes (mean +/- SEM) for the first and 128 +/- 6minutes for the second study. The mean (95% CI) CCC between the two studies was 0.79 (0.67, 0.87) for GE at 1hour, 0.83 (0.75, 0.9) for GE at 2hours, 0.54 (0.34, 0.7) for GE at 4hours, and 0.79 (0.68, 0.86) for GE t(1/2). However, in 18 of 60 patients (30%), the characterization of GE as normal, delayed, or rapid differed between the first and second studies. For gastric empting t(1/2), the inter-individual coefficients of variation was 40%; the intra-individual COV was 20%, comparable in diabetics and non-diabetics, and greater in patients with rapid (28%) than delayed (18%) or normal GE (12%). Conclusions & InferencesAmong patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms, GE measured with scintigraphy is relatively reproducible. In 30% of cases, the interpretation was different between the two assessments. Hence, a diagnosis of gastroparesis based on a single study may occasionally be inaccurate.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available