The Receptive Relaxation of the Stomach

Cannon, W. B.; Lieb, Clarence W.

doi:10.1152/ajplegacy.1911.29.2.267

Cited by 262 publications

(89 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In healthy children and adults, the gastric fundus and body relax as a meal enters, so that there is little increase in intragastric pressures over a wide range of volumes (11)(12)(13). Azpiroz and Malagelada (12, 13) used a computer-driven air pump to infuse air into a noncompliant balloon placed in the stomach .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid Maturation of Gastric Relaxation in Newborn Infants

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied gastric volume, wall compliance, sensory perception, and receptive relaxation during the first postnatal 80 h in 17 healthy term infants, using a computer-driven air pump and simultaneously measuring pressure and volume within a latex balloon placed through the oropharynx into the stomach. To evaluate gastric compliance, we measured pressures while we infused air into the intragastric balloon at different rates (10, 20, and 60 mL/min) in random sequence. In all infants, there was a linear relationship between intragastric pressure and volume to the maximum pressure tested, 30 mm Hg. Gastric compliance ranged from 0.2 mL/mm Hg to 3.8 mL/mm Hg. Different infusion rates had no effect on compliance. We calculated gastric receptive relaxation by measuring the volume needed to maintain a constant pressure of 10 mm Hg within the balloon for 5 min. Gastric receptive relaxation ranged from 0.5 mL/min to 54 mL/min. Gastric compliance and receptive relaxation increased with postnatal age (r ϭ 0.70, p Ͻ 0.005; r ϭ 0.79, p Ͻ 0.001, respectively) and with number of feedings (r ϭ 0.80, r ϭ 0.88, respectively, both p Ͻ 0.001). There was no correlation between weight or type of feeding (breast versus formula) and either gastric compliance or relaxation. In conclusion, these results may explain the small feedings that neonates ingest in the first days of life. During the first 3 postnatal d, the newborn stomach becomes more compliant and develops more receptive relaxation, associated with a larger volume capacity. In healthy neonates, the volume of feedings in the first days of life is 60 -100 mL/kg per day or about 20 -40 mL per feeding. After a few days, the healthy neonate ingests approximately 150 mL/kg per day, or about 75 mL per feeding. The relatively low feeding volume during the first hours of life, coinciding with the physiologic diuresis of excess extracellular fluid that accompanies the transition from prenatal to postnatal life, may be caused by one or more factors, including a lack of hunger or thirst because of CNS depression or arousal, changing hormone concentrations associated with parturition, or immaturity of gastric function. Despite the appearance of anatomic features of the digestive tract early in fetal life (1, 2), many aspects of gastrointestinal motility are immature in the neonate (3-6). In vitro studies demonstrated rapid postnatal changes in the receptors (7,8) and responses to agonists in rabbit gastric muscle (9, 10). One potential explanation for the small voluntary feeding volumes in the hours immediately after birth is an immaturity of gastric relaxation to accommodate the entry of a meal.In healthy children and adults, the gastric fundus and body relax as a meal enters, so that there is little increase in intragastric pressures over a wide range of volumes (11-13). Azpiroz and Malagelada (12, 13) used a computer-driven air pump to infuse air into a noncompliant balloon placed in the stomach . Pressures increased initially as the stomach started to fill. As the stomach continued to fi...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid Maturation of Gastric Relaxation in Newborn Infants

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The stomach actively dilates to accommodate food. Mechanical stimulation of the pharynx and esophagus through the passage of nutrients induces a gastric receptive relaxation via vagal NANC nerves in the stomach of cats (3). Distension by gastric contents elicits vago-vagal reflex responses that keep the stomach relaxed via the NANC neurons (4).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacological Features of Non-adrenergic Non-cholinergic (NANC) Relaxation Induced by Electrical Vagal Stimulation in Isolated Mouse Stomach

Yano

Kiyota

Yamamoto

et al. 1995

Japanese Journal of Pharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT-Thenon-adrenergic non-cholinergic (NANC) relaxatory response in mouse isolated whole stomach was investigated by electrical vagal stimulation (EVS) to clarify whether nitric oxide (NO) mediates vagal NANC transmission. The stomach was mounted in an organ bath, and the intragastric pressure was measured. Dual electrodes were placed on the esophagus. In the presence of atropine, propranolol and phentolamine, EVS induced a marked gastric relaxation. The response was frequency-dependent, and reproducible by repeated stimulation. The response was blocked by hexamethonium and N°-nitro-L-arginine (L-NNA), a NO synthase inhibitor, and significantly depressed by methylene blue, a soluble guanylate cyclase inhibitor, but not by hemoglobin, a radical trapping agent. The inhibitory effect of L-NNA was reversed by L-arginine, a substrate for NO synthase, but not by D-arginine. Exogenous NO caused a relaxation that was inhibited by hemoglobin and methylene blue, but not by L-NNA. The electrical field stimulation also elicited a gastric relaxation that was inhibited by L-NNA and methylene blue, but not by hexamethonium and hemoglobin. These results suggest that the inhibitory NANC response to EVS in the mouse stomach is largely mediated by release of NO, and it is exclusively due to stimulation of vagal preganglionic neurons.

show abstract

“…It is capable of large variations in size and plays an important role in regulating gastric emptying (Kelly, 1977). By 'receptive relaxation' (Cannon & Lieb, 1911) the fundus acts as a reservoir during ingestion of food (Code & Carlson, 1968); but the physiological basis for such activity in the fundus is unknown. Unlike the corpus and antrum of the stomach, the fundus shows no spontaneous phasic contractions and no spontaneous electrical activity (El-Sharkawy, Morgan & Szurszewski, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The electrical basis for contraction and relaxation in canine fundal smooth muscle

Morgan¹,

Muir

Szurszewski³

1981

The Journal of Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY1. Mechanical and intracellular electrical activities were recorded simultaneously from canine fundal and antral smooth muscle preparations.2. Most fundal preparations displayed no spontaneous electrical or mechanical activity. The tissue had a space constant of 1.5 mm and a time constant of 189 msec and showed outward rectification in response to depolarizing current. 3. Transmural nerve stimulation offundal preparations demonstrated the presence ofcholinergic excitatory and non-cholinergic, non-adrenergic inhibitory neural inputs to the tissue. The cholinergic nerve response consisted ofa small, graded depolarization accompanied by a slow graded contraction; the inhibitory nerve response consisted of a graded hyperpolarization accompanied by a slow relaxation.4. The excitatory fundal nerve response was abolished or greatly diminished by D600 and Mn2+. D600 and Mn2+ also decreased basal tone. The inhibitory nerve response was unaffected by either agent. 5. The excitatory nerve response in the fundus was contrasted with the excitatory nerve response in the antrum. In the fundus, stimulation of cholinergic motor nerves produced a depolarization which always produced a contraction. In the antrum, stimulation of cholinergic motor nerves between action potentials produced graded depolarizations of antral cells; however, there were no associated contractions. Stimulation of cholinergic motor nerves during spontaneous action potentials increased the amplitude and duration of the plateau phase of the action potential; this was associated with an augmentation of the spontaneous contractions.6. Voltage-tension curves were determined for antral and fundal preparations using K+ depolarization as a means of controlling membrane potential. Antral preparations displayed a voltage threshold for contraction at a membrane potential approximately 30 mV positive to the resting potential. In contrast, fundal resting potentials were at or more positive than their voltage thresholds.7. These differences in electromechanical coupling provide an explanation for the marked differences in the responses of fundal and antral smooth muscles to nerve stimulation and account for their physiologic function in vivo.

show abstract

The Receptive Relaxation of the Stomach

Cited by 262 publications

References 0 publications

Rapid Maturation of Gastric Relaxation in Newborn Infants

Rapid Maturation of Gastric Relaxation in Newborn Infants

Pharmacological Features of Non-adrenergic Non-cholinergic (NANC) Relaxation Induced by Electrical Vagal Stimulation in Isolated Mouse Stomach

The electrical basis for contraction and relaxation in canine fundal smooth muscle

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About