Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 8575921

Gastrointestinal motility testing--a personal perspective.

E M Quigley
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The role of motility tests in the evaluation of some common disorders in which motility has been assumed to play a role is reviewed. Three separate areas, non-cardiac chest pain, constipation and the irritable bowel syndrome are discussed. In each area, considerable difficulty in the clinical definition of these disorders persists and presents a major obstacle to the evaluation of diagnostic tests. With regard to non-cardiac chest pain, it is apparent that gastro-oesophageal reflux and sensory/perception abnormalities, rather than dysmotility, are the predominant factors, and investigations should take account of this. While studies of colonic and small intestinal motility have demonstrated various abnormal patterns in patients described as suffering from the irritable bowel syndrome, the specificity of any of these motor 'abnormalities' remains uncertain, and manometry cannot be recommended as a diagnostic tool in this context. Considerable advances have been made in our understanding of gut motor physiology and in our ability to accurately record motor function in man, the basic pathophysiology of many 'functional' gut syndromes remains unclear, and the role of dysmotility, in particular, poorly defined.

Explore related subjects

Chest PainColonic DiseasesColonic Diseases, FunctionalConstipationEsophageal Motility DisordersGastroesophageal RefluxGastrointestinal DiseasesGastrointestinal MotilityHumansIntestine, SmallJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E M Quigley. Gastrointestinal motility testing--a personal perspective.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8575921/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Impact of a negative prior stress test on emergency physician disposition decision in ED patients with chest pain syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: Many emergency department (ED) patients with potential acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have prior visits and prior cardiac testing; however, the effect of knowledge of prior testing on the emergency physician disposition decision making is not known. We studied the impact of prior noninvasive testing (ie, stress testing) for myocardial ischemia on disposition decision making in ED patients with potential ACS. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of ED patients with chest pain who received an electrocardiogram for potential ACS. Data included demographics, medical history, stress test history, and TIMI risk score. Patients were followed in-house; 30-day telephone interviews were performed for follow-up. Main outcomes were ED disposition (admit/discharge) and a composite of 30-day death, acute myocardial infarction, and revascularization stratified on the basis of prior stress testing known at the time of presentation. Standard statistical techniques were used with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: There were 1853 patients enrolled and 97% had follow-up. Patients had a mean age of 53 +/- 14 years; 60% were women, 67% were black. There were 1491 (79%) patients without a prior stress test, 291 (16%) had a normal prior stress test result, and 89 (5%) had an abnormal prior stress test result. Admission rates were 92% (95% CI, 87%-98%) for patients with a prior abnormal stress test, 73% (95% CI, 67%-78%) for patients with a normal prior stress test, and 70% (95% CI, 67%-72%) for patients without a prior stress test. Adverse outcomes were the highest among patients with prior abnormal stress test but did not differ significantly between patients with no prior stress test and patients with prior normal stress test (10.1% [95% CI, 3.6-16.7%] vs 5.2% [95% CI, 4.1-6.4%] vs 4.8% [95% CI, 2.4-7.3%]). CONCLUSION: Patients without prior stress tests and patients with prior normal stress tests were admitted for potential ACS at the same rate and had the same 30-day cardiovascular event rates. This suggests that prior stress testing does not affect subsequent disposition decisions. Perhaps cardiac catheterization or computed tomography coronary angiograms would have more of an impact on subsequent visits, making them potentially more cost-effective in the low-risk patient.

Chest Pain↗
PubMed2007

Hypothesis: chest pain in primary spontaneous pneumothorax.

The mechanism of chest pain in spontaneous pneumothorax has never been discussed in the literature. It is proposed that this is due to acute parietal pleural irritation secondary to leakage of inflammatory material following bleb rupture, rather than the presence of interpleural air.

Chest Pain↗