Hannah Askill 1, Emily Gaudoin1, Dipendra Jayantilal Mistry1, Olivier Mougin1, Caroline Hoad1,2, Hayfa Sharif1,2, Luca Marciani1,2, and Penny A Gowland1,2
1Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre,, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom, 2Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Synopsis
Gastric accommodation and gastric tone are key
measure in functional diseases such as gastroparesis, dyspepsia, and even
reflux. Whilst gastric accommodation has been assessed using conventional MRI such measures will have been be perturbed by the subject lying supine. Gastric tone is either assessed using a barostat or pressure sensors. This work investigate the gastric response to a meal in the upright position with the aim of analysing the data to study accommodation and markers of tone in future.
Introduction
Gastric accommodation and gastric tone [1] are key
measure in functional diseases such as gastroparesis, dyspepsia, and even
reflux. Whilst gastric accommodation has been assessed using conventional MRI
[2], gastric tone is either assessed using a barostat (balloon inflated with
gas in the stomach to controlled pressure [1]) or pressure sensors, including
MRI compatible sensors [3]. Previous work has indicated that for simple meals
gastric function can be similar in the supine and upright positions. However it
is clear that the shape of the stomach will be affected by gravity, and we
postulate that the weight of the gastric contents will change the shape of the
stomach in the upright position in a way that will provide an indication of
gastric tone. In this work we present initial data studying the gastric emptying
of two different liquid meals expected to have very different effects on
gastric tone using upright MRI.Methods
Ethics approval for a feeding study was obtained from the University of Nottingham Medical School Ethics Committee. Two subjects have been scanned so far. The subjects arrived fasted at about 9 am and
were scanned seated (80o) in an open 0.5T ASG MRI scanner.
Multislice HASTE scans (10
slices with 20 mm gap to cover abdomen, FOV 31mm) and multislice balanced fast field
echos (FOV 31mm, TR 7
TE 3.5, FA 80,) were
acquired repeatedly as the subjects drank 500 mL of chilled water and then
until stomach emptied completely. The rate of acquisition of the data was
reduced by the operator as the stomach emptied. This procedure was then
repeated as the volunteer drank 500 mL of yoghurt drink (The Collective Kefir
Mango Cultured Drink, Sainsburys; 7.8g fat, 33g carbohydrate, 14g protein
total).
From
the acquired images, the volume of the gastric contents and gastric lumen was
outlined was measured at regular intervals during the emptying using MIPAV (https://mipav.cit.nih.gov/), however for
preliminary analysis only alternate slices were measured.
Results
Figure
1 shows an example HASTE images when the stomach is filled for both meals and
both subjects. The difference in accommodation between the two subjects is very
apparent.
Figure 2 shows the variation in the volume of the gastric contents with
time for both subjects. (Subject 2 drank the water slowly which is why the
volume initially rose).All curves have been fitted to an exponential which approximated a straight line for the nutrient meals. Discussion
We have developed a protocol for measuring gastric emptying seated in an open low field MRI scanner. The water and nutrient meals produces the expected gastric emptying profiles, with the nutrient meal emptying much slower. The shape of the
stomach will be influence by gastric tone, the weight of the gastric contents and
the intra-abdominal pressure. Gas volumes varied during the study, probably due
to physiological reasons and errors in determining the position of the stomach
wall in this preliminary analysis. Future work will focus on comparing the area
of the gut wall to the weight in the stomach as a potential marker of gastric
tone in both upright and supine positions.Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1.
Gregersen
and Christensen, Neurogastro. Mot. 12, 501-8, 2000.
2.
Coleman
et al, Aliment Pharmacol ter, 18, 1039-48, 2003.
3.
Kwiatek
et al, Am. J. Physiol, Gastro Liver Physiol, 297, G1894-2901, 2009.