Scintigraphic measurement of regional gastrointestinal transit in the dog

Iwanaga, Yuji; Wen, Jipu; Thollander, Mikael; Kost, Louis J.; Thomforde, George M.; Allen, Richard B.; Phillips, Sidney F.

doi:10.1152/ajpgi.1998.275.5.g904

Cited by 33 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Postprandial gastric motility is assessed either by quantifying gastric emptying time and/or gastric antral motility or by detecting the electrical excitement caused by gastric movement. Gastric emptying can be evaluated using scintigraphy [1,14], a 13 Coctanoic acid breath test [8,31], or radiopaque markers [18,27], whereas gastric antral motility is examined using force transducers [13] or abdominal ultrasonography [5,7,9,19].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-Time Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Canine Gastric Motility in the Postprandial State

Tsukamoto

Ohno

Tsukagoshi

et al. 2011

The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Gastric motility is affected by several pathological conditions which may induce upper gastrointestinal clinical symptoms. The pathogenesis of canine gastric motility disorders is poorly understood because of methodological limitations. This study aimed at establishing a simple method for evaluating postprandial gastric motility in dogs. Gastric motility was ultrasonographically assessed in 7 healthy beagles using a technique previously described in humans. The motility index (MI), an indicator of gastric antral motility, was calculated by measuring the area of the gastric antrum in both a contracted and relaxed phase and by counting the number of contractions. The MI was measured every 30 min for 3 hr after feeding and compared with gastric emptying as assessed by a 13 C-octanoic acid breath test. The MI at 30 min had the lowest variability in the 7 dogs (mean ± SD, 9.77  0.42; coefficient of variance, 4.25%), and a significant correlation was observed with gastric emptying coefficient (R 2 =0.8126, P=0.005) and half-emptying time (R 2 =0.654, P=0.027). When atropine was administered, a significant decrease in the MI at 30 min was observed compared with the control (9.77  0.42 vs. 5.19  0.22, P=0.0003). In conclusion, evaluation of the MI at 30 min is suitable for assessing gastric motility and enables us to assess gastric motility simply in a short time. By using this method, further studies for the pathogenesis of canine gastric motility disorders are warranted.KEY WORDS: 13 C-octanoic acid breath test, canine, gastric motility, motility index, ultrasonography.J. Vet. Med. Sci. 73(9): 1133-1138, 2011 Gastric motility disorders are caused secondary by several diseases or drug administration and possibly related with the pathogenesis of upper gastrointestinal clinical symptoms such as anorexia, vomiting, abdominal pain, and emesis. Several methods for evaluating gastric motility in both humans and dogs have been described [25,29]. Gastric motor activity has 2 characteristic phases: fasting and the postprandial phase. Many of the previous studies have focused on the postprandial phase. Postprandial gastric motility is assessed either by quantifying gastric emptying time and/or gastric antral motility or by detecting the electrical excitement caused by gastric movement. Gastric emptying can be evaluated using scintigraphy [1,14], a 13 Coctanoic acid breath test [8,31], or radiopaque markers [18,27], whereas gastric antral motility is examined using force transducers [13] or abdominal ultrasonography [5,7,9,19].Of these methods, scintigraphy is considered the gold standard for evaluating gastric emptying in both humans and dogs [22,29]. However, it requires a specialized facility and exposure to radiation. The 13 C-octanoic acid breath test is an indirect method of assessing gastric emptying using a non-radioisotope-labeled substrate. The test involves monitoring the rate of 13 CO 2 in expired air following ingestion of a test meal mixed with 13 C-octanoic acid. The 13 C-octanoic acid breath test has ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Real-Time Ultrasonographic Evaluation of Canine Gastric Motility in the Postprandial State

Tsukamoto

Ohno

Tsukagoshi

et al. 2011

The Journal of Veterinary Medical Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A variety of different techniques are available for the assessment of drug-induced changes in GI motility, from the conventional organ bath preparation and the gold standard preclinical in vivo evaluation method, the rodent charcoal meal (Harrison et al 2004), to newer and more innovative methods including the use of wireless motility devices and imaging (Iwanaga et al 1998;Chiba et al 2000Chiba et al , 2002.…”

Section: Assessment Of Gastric Emptying and Intestinal Motilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Gastrointestinal Safety Pharmacology in Drug Discovery and Development

Al‐Saffar

Costa²,

Delaunois³

et al. 2015

Principles of Safety Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the basic structure of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) is similar across species, there are significant differences in the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry between humans and laboratory animals, which should be taken into account when conducting a gastrointestinal (GI) assessment. Historically, the percentage of cases of drug attrition associated with GI-related adverse effects is small; however, this incidence has increased over the last few years. Drug-related GI effects are very diverse, usually functional in nature, and not limited to a single pharmacological class. The most common GI signs are nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, and gastric ulceration. Despite being generally not life-threatening, they can greatly affect patient compliance and quality of life. There is therefore a real need for improved and/or more extensive GI screening of candidate drugs in preclinical development, which may help to better predict clinical effects. Models to identify drug effects on GI function cover GI motility, nausea and emesis liability, secretory function (mainly gastric secretion), and absorption aspects. Both in vitro and in vivo assessments are described in this chapter. Drug-induced effects on GI function can be assessed in stand-alone safety pharmacology studies or as endpoints integrated into toxicology studies. In silico approaches are also being developed, such as the gut-on-a-chip model, but await further optimization and validation before routine use in drug development. GI injuries are still in their infancy with regard to biomarkers, probably due to their greater diversity. Nevertheless, several potential blood, stool, and breath biomarkers have been investigated. However, additional validation studies are necessary to assess the relevance of these biomarkers and their predictive value for GI injuries.

show abstract

“…Anterior images were acquired at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120, 180 and 240 min after the meal. The region of interest was drawn around the stomach on the anterior and posterior images for each frame; a semi-auto-analysis system was used to calculate the emptying of the stomach by computer methodology (25).…”

Section: Gastric Emptyingmentioning

confidence: 99%