Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND

In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention.

METHODS

Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications.

RESULTS

Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN33682933.

Long-term oncological outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness resection after previous incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC (LOCAL-study): study protocol of a national prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly lower morbidity, mortality and costs compared to radical surgery. An important prerequisite for endoscopic resection as definite treatment is the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins. Incomplete resection with involved (R1) or indeterminate (Rx) margins is considered a strong risk factor for residual disease and local recurrence. Therefore, international guidelines recommend additional surgery in case of R1/Rx resection, even in absence of high-risk factors for LNM. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a relatively new technique that allows transmural resection of colorectal lesions. Local scar excision after prior R1/Rx resection of low-risk T1 CRC could offer an attractive minimal invasive strategy to achieve confirmation about radicality of the previous resection or a second attempt for radical resection of residual luminal cancer. However, oncologic safety has not been established and long-term data are lacking. Besides, surveillance varies widely and requires standardization.

METHODS/DESIGN

In this nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study we aim to assess feasibility and oncological safety of completion eFTR following incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC. The primary endpoint is to assess the 2 and 5 year luminal local tumor recurrence rate. Secondary study endpoints are to assess feasibility, percentage of curative eFTR-resections, presence of scar tissue and/or complete scar excision at histopathology, safety of eFTR compared to surgery, 2 and 5 year nodal and/or distant tumor recurrence rate and 5-year disease-specific and overall-survival rate.

DISCUSSION

Since the implementation of CRC screening programs, the diagnostic rate of T1 CRC is steadily increasing. A significant proportion is not recognized as cancer before endoscopic resection and is therefore resected through conventional techniques primarily reserved for benign polyps. As such, precise histological assessment is often hampered due to cauterization and fragmentation and frequently leads to treatment dilemmas. This first prospective trial will potentially demonstrate the effectiveness and oncological safety of completion eFTR for patients who have undergone a previous incomplete T1 CRC resection. Hereby, substantial surgical overtreatment may be avoided, leading to treatment optimization and organ preservation. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register, NL 7879, 16 July 2019 ( https://trialregister.nl/trial/7879 ).

Detecting Colorectal Adenomas and Cancer Using Volatile Organic Compounds in Exhaled Breath: A Proof-of-Principle Study to Improve Screening

INTRODUCTION

Early detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) by screening programs is crucial because survival rates worsen at advanced stages. However, the currently used screening method, the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), suffers from a high number of false-positives and is insensitive for detecting advanced adenomas (AAs), resulting in false-negatives for these premalignant lesions. Therefore, more accurate, noninvasive screening tools are needed. In this study, the utility of analyzing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in exhaled breath in a FIT-positive population to detect the presence of colorectal neoplasia was studied.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective study, breath samples were collected from 382 FIT-positive patients with subsequent colonoscopy participating in the national Dutch bowel screening program (n = 84 negative controls, n = 130 non-AAs, n = 138 AAs, and n = 30 CRCs). Precolonoscopy exhaled VOCs were analyzed using thermal desorption-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, and the data were preprocessed and analyzed using machine learning techniques.

RESULTS

Using 10 discriminatory VOCs, AAs could be distinguished from negative controls with a sensitivity and specificity of 79% and 70%, respectively. Based on this biomarker profile, CRC and AA combined could be discriminated from controls with a sensitivity and specificity of 77% and 70%, respectively, and CRC alone could be discriminated from controls with a sensitivity and specificity of 80% and 70%, respectively. Moreover, the feasibility to discriminate non-AAs from controls and AAs was shown.

DISCUSSION

VOCs in exhaled breath can detect the presence of AAs and CRC in a CRC screening population and may improve CRC screening in the future.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years.

METHODS

In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Evaluation of polypectomy quality indicators of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps in a nonexpert, bowel cancer screening cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

With the introduction of the national bowel cancer screening program, the detection of sessile and flat colonic lesions ≥20 mm in size, defined as large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), has increased. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of endoscopic treatment of LNPCPs in the Dutch screening program.

METHODS

This investigation comprised 2 related, but separate, substudies (1 with a cross-sectional design and 1 with a longitudinal design). The first examined prevalence and characteristics of LNPCPs in data from the national Dutch screening cohort from February 2014 until January 2017. The second, with screening data from 5 endoscopy units in the Southern part of the Netherlands from February 2014 until August 2015, examined performance on important quality indicators (technical and clinical successes, recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and surgery referral rate). All patients were part of the national Dutch screening cohort.

RESULTS

In the national cohort, an LNPCP was detected in 8% of participants. Technical and clinical success decreased with increasing LNPCP size, from 93% and 96% in 20- to 29-mm lesions to 85% and 86% in 30- to 39-mm lesions and to 74% and 81% in ≥40-mm lesions (P < .001; P = .034). The cumulative recurrence rate at 12 months increased with LNPCP size, from 9% to 22% and 26% in the respective size groups (P = .095). The adverse event rate was 5%. The overall surgical referral rate for noninvasive LNPCPs was 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this performance of 2 substudies, it was shown that quality parameters for endoscopic resection of large polyps in the Dutch screening cohort are not reached, especially in ≥30-mm polyps. Endoscopic resection of large polyps could benefit from additional training, quality monitoring, and centralization either within or between centers.

Immediate versus Postponed Intervention for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.).

Gastric peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy for decompensated gastroparesis: comprehensive motility analysis in relation to treatment outcomes

Background and study aims  There are no reliable data to predict which patients with gastroparesis (GP) would benefit the most from gastric peroral endoscopic pyloromyotomy (G-POEM). The aim of the present study was to assess whether antro-duodenal motility patterns and pyloric distensibility can predict the outcome of G-POEM in patients with decompensated GP. Patients and methods  In an open-label study, patients with GP and refractory symptoms were eligible for treatment with G-POEM if treatment attempts according to a standardized stepwise protocol had failed. Baseline assessment included Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI), C13-octanoic gastric emptying breath test and high-resolution antro-duodenal manometry. Pyloric distensibility using EndoFlip measurements was assessed at baseline and 3 months after the procedure. Explorative analyses were performed on potential predictors of response using logistic regression analyses. Results  Twenty-four patients with decompensated GP underwent G-POEM. At baseline, 78.3 % and 61.9 % of patients showed antral hypomotility and neuropathic motor patterns, respectively. The technical success rate was 100 % (24/24). Mean GCSI improved significantly at 3, 6, and 12 months after G-POEM ( P  = 0.01). Median distensibility index (DI) improved significantly as compared with baseline (7.5 [6.9;11.7] vs. 5.3[3.1;8.1], P  = 0.004). A significant correlation was found between clinical response at 6 months and pyloric DI improvement ( P  = 0.003). No potential predictors of clinical response after G-POEM could be identified in an explorative analysis. Conclusions  G-POEM improved pyloric distensibility patterns in patients with decompensated GP. Clinical response at 6 months after G-POEM was associated with pyloric distensibility improvement. However, no potential predictors of response could be identified from either antro-duodenal motility patterns or pyloric distensibility.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden.

METHODS

Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior.

DISCUSSION

This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018.

Switching from infliximab innovator to biosimilar in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a 12-month multicentre observational prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Infliximab biosimilars have become available for treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, data showing long-term safety and effectiveness of biosimilars in IBD patients are limited.

AIM

To study prospectively the switch from infliximab innovator to biosimilar in an IBD cohort with 12 months follow-up to evaluate safety and effectiveness.

METHODS

Adult IBD patients from two hospitals treated with infliximab innovator (Remicade; Janssen Biotech,  Horsham ,  Pennsylvania, USA) were switched to infliximab biosimilar (Inflectra; Hospira, Lake Forest, Illinois, USA) as part of routine care, but in a controlled setting. Blood samples were taken just before the first, second, fourth and seventh infusion of biosimilar. Infliximab trough levels, antibodies-to-infliximab (ATI), CRP and ESR were measured and disease activity scores were calculated.

RESULTS

Our cohort consisted of 133 IBD patients (64% CD, 36% UC). Before switching we found widely varying infliximab levels (median 3.5 μg/mL). ATI were detected in eight patients (6%). Most patients were in remission or had mild disease (CD: 82% UC: 90%). After switching to biosimilar, 35 patients (26%) discontinued therapy within 12 months, mostly due to subjective higher disease activity (9%) and adverse events (AE, 9.8%). AE included general malaise/fatigue (n = 7), arthralgia (n = 2), skin problems (n = 2) and infusion reactions (n = 2). No differences in IFX levels, CRP, and disease activity scores were found between the four time points (P ≥ .0917).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no differences in drug levels and disease activity between infliximab innovator and biosimilar in our IBD cohort, indicating that biosimilars are safe and effective. The high proportions of discontinuers were mostly due to elective withdrawal or subjective disease worsening.

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference.

FUNDING

The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas (MATILDA-trial): rationale and design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is currently the most used technique for resection of large distal colorectal polyps. However, in large lesions EMR can often only be performed in a piecemeal fashion resulting in relatively low radical (R0)-resection rates and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a newer procedure that is more difficult resulting in a longer procedural time, but is promising due to the high en-bloc resection rates and the very low recurrence rates. We aim to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of ESD against EMR on both short (i.e. 6 months) and long-term (i.e. 36 months). We hypothesize that in the short-run ESD is more time consuming resulting in higher healthcare costs, but is (cost-) effective on the long-term due to lower patients burden, a higher number of R0-resections and lower recurrence rates with less need for repeated procedures.

Methods

This is a multicenter randomized clinical trial in patients with a non-pedunculated polyp larger than 20 mm in the rectum, sigmoid, or descending colon suspected to be an adenoma by means of endoscopic assessment. Primary endpoint is recurrence rate at follow-up colonoscopy at 6 months. Secondary endpoints are R0-resection rate, perceived burden and quality of life, healthcare resources utilization and costs, surgical referral rate, complication rate and recurrence rate at 36 months. Quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) will be estimated taking an area under the curve approach and using EQ-5D-indexes. Healthcare costs will be calculated by multiplying used healthcare services with unit prices. The cost-effectiveness of ESD against EMR will be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) showing additional costs per recurrence free patient and as ICER showing additional costs per QALY.

Discussion

If this trial confirms ESD to be favorable on the long-term, the burden of extra colonoscopies and repeated procedures can be prevented for future patients.

Trial registration

NCT02657044 (Clinicaltrials.gov), registered January 8, 2016.

Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711]

Background

Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.

Methods/Design

The TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs.

Discussion

The TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.

Comparison of two techniques for lower oesophageal sphincter manometry: sleeve and sphinctometer

We have compared the sphinctometer with the water-perfused sleeve (gold standard) for measurement of lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) characteristics by simultaneous recording. LOS pressure and transient LOS relaxations (TLOSR) measured by sleeve and sphinctometer in 11 healthy volunteers showed identical patterns. However, output of the sphinctometer was significantly (P < 0.01) lower than output of the sleeve. A total of 249 TLOSR were recorded. Of these, 176 TLOSR were identified by both sleeve and sphinctometer, 50 TLOSR were identified by sleeve alone and 23 TLOSR by sphinctometer alone. Due to the lower pressure output of the sphinctometer, 29 LOS relaxations did not reach criteria to qualify as TLOSRs. When TLOSR criteria were adjusted for sphinctometer pressure measurements, the number of TLOSRs identified by both sleeve and sphinctometer increased from 176 to 205. In conclusion, in healthy volunteers the sphinctometer registers TLOSR with results comparable with sleeve recording. However at low LOS pressures, the number of TLOSR is underscored by the sphinctometer.

Provocation of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations during continuous gastric distension

BACKGROUND

Transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) are triggered by gastric distension. The aim of the study was to investigate TLESRs during controlled prolonged gastric distensions using the barostat technique.

METHODS

Twelve healthy volunteers (4 M, 8 F, age range 19-42 years) were studied under fasting conditions with combined esophageal manometry (Dentsleeve) and gastric barostat. Randomized isobaric distensions at 0 (control), 10, 12 and 14 mmHg were performed each period for 30 min with 30-min recovery periods in between.

RESULTS

The frequency of TLESR was significantly (P < 0.05) higher during all distension periods compared to control periods (4.0 +/- 0.4 TLESR/30 min versus 2.6 +/- 0.4 TLESR/30 min). The frequency of TLESR in the first 15-min period of distension was significantly (P < 0.001) higher compared to the second 15-min period pointing to adaptation (2.7 +/- 0.3 TLESR/15 min versus 1.3 +/- 0.2 TLESR/15 min, respectively). The frequency of TLESR correlated significantly with intragastric pressure (r = 0.47; P < 0.01) and wall tension (r = 0.48; P < 0.01), but not with intragastric volume. TLESR characteristics such as duration were not related to pressure or wall tension.

CONCLUSIONS

Acute gastric distension increases the frequency of TLESR but adaptation occurs rapidly. The frequency of TLESR during distension is related to pressure and wall tension rather than to intragastric volume.