Practical Gastroenterology is excited to bring you this special supplement featuring abstract highlights and author insights from the American College of Gastroenterology’s 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Among the inflammatory bowel disease-related abstracts, we include those which focus on pregnancy, quality of life issues, treatment options and the importance of colonoscopy surveillance. The abstract highlights and author insights below first appeared on the ACG Blog and were selected by the ACG Educational Affairs and PR Committees as newsworthy.
A CASE REPORT
Perivascular Epithelioid Cell Neoplasm (PEComa) as a Cause of Abdominal Pain in a Child
Author Disclosures: Dr. Pohl has received the following funding: INSPPIRE to Study Acute Recurrent and Chronic Pancreatitis is Children, Grant# 10987759, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
CASE REPORT
A10 year-old previously healthy male presented with a chief complaint of epigastric pain and gastroesophageal reflux symptoms for two years. The abdominal pain was intermittent in nature. Although he complained of intermittent gastroesophageal reflux, he denied emesis, hematemesis, bilious emesis, dysphagia, or odynophagia. He had no weight loss or early satiety. In the gastroenterology clinic, the patient was noted to have normal vital signs and growth parameters (per CDC growth charts). His physical exam was normal. Laboratory testing revealed a normal complete blood count and hepatic function panel. An erythrocyte sedimentation rate, alpha fetoprotein level, lactate dehydrogenase level, and uric acid level were normal.
An esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed which was normal except for evidence of a raised area consistent with a possible mass near the antrum with no overlying mucosal changes (Figure 1). Forcep biopsies of this area were normal. A subsequent computed tomography scan of the abdomen revealed a round soft tissue mass (measuring 1.8 x 2.4 x 2.2 centimeters) in an anterior aspect of the fissure of the falciform ligament (Figure 2). This lesion was exerting a mass effect on the lesser curvature of the stomach. An endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was performed which revealed a 2.4 centimeter, heterogeneous lesion that was round to oval in shape and well demarcated. The lesion was densely hypervascular, with extensive Doppler flow activity along the entire periphery of the lesion and, to a lesser extent, within the lesion itself. The lesion did not appear to arise from the gastric wall, and there was no peri-lesional adenopathy (Figure 3).
The patient underwent laprascopic surgical excision, and a spherical mass was found within the falciform ligament without evidence of peritoneal implants. The liver and gallbladder appeared normal. The mass was shown to measure 2.8 x 2.4 x 1.7 centimeters (weight 6.9 grams), and it consisted of an encapsulated purple- tan soft tissue mass with attached fibromembranous tissue (Figure 4). On microscopic examination, the mass demonstrated a fascicular and nested proliferation of spindle to epithelioid cells with clear to eosinophilic cytoplasm and round to oval nuclei (Figure 5). There was no mitotic activity, necrosis, or vascular invasion identified. Immunohistochemically, the cells were positive for smooth muscle marker (smooth muscle actin) and melanocytic markers (HMB-45 and Melan-A) (Figures 6 and 7). Cell staining was negative for AE1/ AE3, EMA, desmin, MYF-4, S-100, ALK-1, CD117, and CD34. These findings were consistent with a PEComa of the falciform ligament.
The pediatric oncology service was consulted on this patient, and it was decided that the risk of tumor recurrence and metastases was low. He has been scheduled for annual abdominal ultrasounds. Interestingly, all symptoms of abdominal pain and gastroesophageal reflux resolved after tumor removal.
DISCUSSION
PEComas neoplasms are characterized by perivascular epithelioid cells with a myomelanocytic immunophenotype that are typically arranged around the vasculature.1,2,3 These cells have a characteristic epithelioid or spindled appearance, and such cells that express both smooth muscle and melanocytic cell markers using immunohistochemistry staining.4 Many PEComas are benign, but they also have been reported to be malignant. The ratio of PEComa formation is equivalent between males and females in prepubertal children, although there is a strong female predominance of PEComa formation in adolescents and adults.5 There is a known association of PEComa with tuberous sclerosis.6, 7
The differential diagnosis of submucosal gastric masses is quite large but will include lipomas, duplication cysts, pancreatic rests, PEComas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, metastatic melanoma, clear cell sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, carcinoid tumor as seen in multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, and paragangliomas.8 These lesions may be difficult to differentiate based on morphology alone although use of endoscopic ultrasound and tissue immunohistochemistry greatly aids in the diagnosis.5,9,10 Notably, clear cell sarcomas of a gastrointestinal variant consist of spindle and epithelioid cells with diffuse S100 positivity and variable positivity for other melanocytic markers and can be confused with a PEComa based on immunohistochemistry. Molecular genetic studies to demonstrate the EWS-ATF fusion gene representing t(12;22) q13;12) translocation or the EWS-CREB3L2 fusion gene representing t(2;22) q34;12) translocation can be used to differentiate clear cell sarcoma from PEComa a clear cell sarcoma is often S100 positive and may be difficult to differentiate from PEComa based on immunohistochemistry.10,11,12
Previously, tumors such as angiomyolipoma, lymphangioleiomyomatosis, primary extrapulmonary sugar tumor, and clear cell myomelanocytic tumor were noted to have similar histologic characteristics although they were present in different anatomic locations. Hence, the term “PEComa” has been developed to broadly characterize this tumor grouping with specific histologic findings regardless of anatomic location or morphology.5, 13 As a result, PEComas have been described as occurring at the kidney, liver, lung, nose, bladder, and other locations.1, 13, 14, 15, 16 PEComas have been noted to occur in the gastrointestinal tract anywhere from the stomach to the rectum. PEComas of the gastrointestinal either tend to be located in the serosa with involvement of all associated bowel layers or will be polypoid tumors involving the mucosa and submucosa.8, 17 In our described case, the presumed gastric mass was, in actuality, a gastric compression from a PEComa at the falciform ligament which is a known location for such a tumor.18
PEComas are rare in children, and approximately 40 pediatric cases have been documented as occurring in the pelvis, vagina, eye/orbit, and gastrointestinal tract (including the duodenum, appendix, colon, and rectum).5 Abdominal pain may be a presenting symptoms in a patient with an abdominal PEComa.1 In 2000, a unique pediatric case series of 7 patients described PEComas occurring exclusively at or near the ligamentum teres and falciform ligament. Most of these cases occurred in females, and the cases occurred at an average age of 11 years. Immunohistochemistry staining demonstrated that the tumors were positive for smooth muscle actin, melin-A, and myosin but were negative for desmin, in a pattern similar to our patient. Follow-up data, available in six of seven cases, showed five patients to be free of disease, and one to have a radiographically presumed lung metastases.19
PEComas have been described as benign or malignant although the criteria for malignancy are not well defined. Most PEComas located at the falciform ligament or ligamentum teres are benign, and the therapy for such tumors is surgical resection.5 PEComa features associated with a higher risk of malignancy include large size (greater than 5 centimeters), infiltrative growth, mitoses greater than 1 in 50 per high power field, vascular invasion, and necrosis.20 The PEComa of our described patient had a diameter less than 5 centimeters and had no significant nuclear atypia, necrosis, or mitotic activity likely consistent with a benign lesion.
Surgical resection is the treatment of choice for most PEComas; however, chemotherapy may be indicated for PEComas with histologic features consistent with malignant disease or in the event of associated metastases.5, 21 Doxorubicin and ifosfamide have been used as chemotherapy for PEComas, and rapamycin, an inhibitor of m-TOR, also has been used as treatment for malignant PEComa.22, 23 Close follow-up with serial imaging (such as ultrasound) is necessary to evaluate for PEComa recurrence.24
NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #135
Fresh Look at Holiday Foods for those with Dysphagia
Dysphagia may result from a disease process, surgery, trauma, dental work, or congenital problem affecting any aspect of the swallowing process from the mouth to the esophagus. In this article, we outline recipes and how-to tips to prepare soft, moist foods, so that patients living with dysphagia will once again be able to experience the joy associated with holiday eating.
INTRODUCTION
For a variety of reasons, many patients experience dysphagia, or difficulty swallowing, and may therefore require liquids or soft consistency foods to meet their nutrition requirements. Dysphagia may result from a disease process, surgery, trauma, dental work, or congenital problem affecting any aspect of the swallowing process from the mouth to the esophagus. Some of the more common reasons include mechanical issues such as cancers in the mouth or throat and neurological issues caused by stroke, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), or Parkinson?s disease. In addition, patients who have undergone esophageal surgeries and/or stent placements often require a period of altered food consistency. Softer food choices can make manipulating foods in the mouth easier and shorten meal times, while reducing the risk of aspiration.
Numerous specialists are involved in determining the appropriate course of action for patients with dysphagia. Speech-language pathologists often direct oropharyngeal dysphagia recommendations, while gastroenterologists and radiologists usually manage esophageal dysphagia. The Registered Dietitian?s job is to translate these recommendations into actual foods, taking into consideration the nutritional adequacy of a limited consistency diet.
People with dysphagia go through profound adjustments in their lives. The dietary changes that are imposed, in particular, often create a feeling of loss related to the social aspects of eating that are so important in our lives. This can result in a decrease in intake that leads to significant, and sometimes severe, weight loss. Without appropriate intervention, such a cycle will negatively impact quality of life, and health.
Below is a collection of festive holiday recipes and how-to tips to prepare soft, moist foods, so that people living with dysphagia will once again be able to experience the joy associated with holiday eating. We think these recipes are so tasty, they will delight all of those around the holiday table. Bon Appetit!
Sensational Holiday Recipes
The holidays are associated with the savory entrees, side dishes and soups we all know and love. While any favorite meal can be processed to meet swallowing consistency needs, we offer the following recipes that may become some of your new favorites.
SUMMARY
The holidays bring opportunities to enjoy a variety of festive dishes. With some planning, those living with dysphagia can continue to enjoy the celebrations (and food!) that so often accompany the holiday season. Hopefully, these recipes will allow your patients to feel more included in their traditional family festive food fares and more fully enjoy their holiday season.
See this article’s PDF for complete recipes for side dishes, entrees, smoothies and shakes, snacks and desserts.
GERD IN THE 21st CENTURY, SERIES #24
Circadian Reflux Pattern on PPI Therapy
Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has become the standard treatment for patients with GERD. The normal circadian pattern of intragastric acidity is an increase in acid secretion beginning in the evening until midnight. The circadian pattern for esophageal reflux is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to analyze the circadian pattern of both acid and non-acid reflux and the effect of PPI therapy.
INTRODUCTION
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a common entity, affecting approximately one third of the US population at least once a month and 7% on a daily basis.1 The presenting symptoms associated with GERD vary from the more typical heartburn and regurgitation to extraesophageal symptoms such as cough and throat clearing. Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has become the standard treatment for patients with GERD.2
The normal circadian rhythm of intragastric acidity is usually an increase in the acid secretion in the evening until the middle of the night and then a decrease in the morning.3 The circadian rhythm for total esophageal reflux episodes is unknown. Gudmundsson4 in 1988 showed that the time pattern of GERD separated into 3 periods when studied with ambulatory 24 hour esophageal pH-monitoring and identified the most acid reflux episodes in the evening.
Ambulatory Impedance-pH technology (Imp-pH) provides the opportunity to monitor all reflux episodes; acid and non-acid in type, both in the upright and recumbent positions.5,6 This test avoids a false positive study due to acidic meals or drinks and is becoming the gold standard for detection and analysis of GERD and for clarifying its relationship to symptoms.7,8 Excluding the meal periods from ambulatory pH monitoring improves the diagnosis of esophageal reflux disease.9 The goal of this study was to further characterize the daily pattern of reflux and the effect of PPI therapy on it using combined pH and impedance to identify all types of reflux.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A retrospective review was performed on MII-pH studies from 300 patients (162 females); age range 18-84 years, who underwent testing to evaluate symptoms felt to be possibly due to GERD. These MII-pH studies were performed on 100 patients each on twice a day (BID) PPI therapy, once a day (QD) PPI therapy and off (OFF) PPI therapy. The Imp-pH studies were performed from February 2006 until February 2008.
Indications for the test were heartburn, regurgitation, indigestion, persistent cough, asthma or throat clearing.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients on more than one reflux therapy agent (H2 blockers, more than 1 PPI, baclofen, sucralfate)
- Studies with only upright or only recumbent readings.
- History of a previous Nissen fundoplication.
A standard multichannel intraluminal impedance pH (Imp-pH) catheter (Sandhill Scientific Inc., Highlands Ranch, CO) was used. This 2mm diameter catheter has the ability to record esophageal and gastric pH, along with the presence and direction of any liquid flow in the esophagus. The MII-pH catheter was passed through the nasal cavity and into the stomach in the morning 0800-1000 in fasting patients. The catheter was slowly pulled back in a stepwise fashion to locate the LES using the single pressure sensor in the distal portion of the catheter. Dual pH monitoring was located at 5 cm above and 15 cm below the proximal margin of the LES with 6 impedance sensors at 3, 5, 7,9,15 and 17 cm above the LES.
The following parameters were assessed:
- Total number of reflux episodes (acid and non- acid) per hour (both upright and recumbent)
- Type of reflux; acid or non-acid.
- Relation of reflux episodes to the beginning of the recumbent time.
The daily analysis was further divided into 3 segments: morning between 0600- 1400, evening between 1400- 2200, and night between 2200-0600. Meal times indicated by the patient on MII-pH studies were excluded from data analysis. Comparison of the 3 groups was performed using ANOVA.
RESULTS
The mean number of daily reflux episodes per patient off PPI was 24.3, on QD PPI it was 32.00 and on BID PPI it was 28.2 (Table 1). These were not significantly (NS) different, although interestingly numerically greater in the two groups studied on PPI. The mean number of acid reflux episodes per patient was 15.6 off PPI. It was 6.2 on QD PPI and 5.1 on BID PPI (p<0.05). The mean number of non-acid reflux episodes per patient in off PPI was 8.7, on QD PPI it was 25.8 and on BID PPI was 23.1 (p<0.05). There was also no significant difference between total number nor type of reflux seen on PPI therapy comparing QD with BID.
The circadian patterns of reflux episodes in the three patient groups were similar. (Fig. 1-3) The circadian pattern of the off PPI group (Figure 1) is similar to that of the QD PPI group (Figure 2), with peaks around meal and postprandial hours and a drop in the number of episodes after 11pm. The circadian pattern in the BID PPI group (Figure 3) is similar to those of the off PPI and QD PPI groups. There is an increase in the average reflux episodes per hour around lunch time which continuously increases with peaks around 2pm and 7pm related to the post prandial state. Reflux episodes were frequent in the evening postprandial period. There is a sudden drop in the number of reflux episodes after 11pm. During night time recumbency there were less frequent reflux episodes with no significant difference between the OFF and ON therapy groups (< 1 episode/ hour in all groups).
Figure 4 (a,b,c) shows the decrease in the average number of reflux episodes when assuming the recumbent position, shown with episodes aligned to the start of recumbency (R) for all 3 groups.
The total number of reflux episodes seen in the 3 groups was 8455 (Figure 5). Of these, only 862 (10.2%) occurred in the recumbent position. In the off PPI group, 11.0% of the episodes were seen in the recumbent position. In the QD PPI group it was 10.3% and in the BID PPI group it was 9.4% of the total episodes (NS)
When analyzing the mean reflux episodes per hour during each segment of the day, most of the episodes (nearly double) were seen in the evening when compared to the other two segments of the day. (Figure 6) The mean number of reflux episodes in the evening in the off PPI group was 1.9 and was 2.6 and 2.3 in the QD and BID PPI group respectively. These values are not significantly different. Also, there was no significant difference between the mean reflux episodes in the morning. Mean reflux episodes was 1.0 in the off PPI group, 1.3 in the QD PPI group and 0.9 in the BID PPI group. During the night time, mean number of reflux episodes was 0.6 in the off PPI group, 0.7 in the QD PPI group and 0.5 in the BID PPI group (NS).
As expected, when the total reflux episodes were divided into acid and non- acid in type in the off PPI group (Figure 7A), there was more acid type reflux seen. In contrast, in the 2 on therapy groups (QD and BID)), the number of non- acid type reflux predominates. (Figures 7B and 7C respectively).
DISCUSSION
Reflux occurs in all individuals and it is affected by position, feeding, and state of wakefulness. Circadian variations shown by Stein in 1990 found no differences in the frequency of esophageal contractions during upright, supine, and meal periods in normal volunteers or patients with GERD.2 Wang in 1996 found that there were more reflux episodes in the upright than in the supine position10 in 10 healthy subjects.
Reflux episodes are believed to be more common at nighttime than in the rest of the day, especially in the early part of the nighttime11 and are associated with late meals and snacks. Also there is evidence that nighttime GERD has a greater impact on a patient?s life than daytime GERD.12,13 Moore and Englert found greater rates of acid secretion in the evening with no variation in the serum gastrin levels when compared to the morning levels.14,15 Sharma et.al.16 showed that many patients on PPIs still experience GERD symptoms that were frequently associated with non-acid reflux.
An important observation from our data is that circadian patterns of all types of reflux (acid and non- acid) are similar in patients on and off PPI therapy. There is no change in the number of reflux episodes, especially in the upright position, but PPI therapy does change the composition of the refluxate from acid to primarily non-acid in type.
We found that about 90% of reflux episodes occur in the upright position and in the evening related to a meal and the post prandial state. This is not a surprise since transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations mainly occur in the meal-distended stomach.17.
There is also a dramatic decrease in episodes with the onset of recumbency, which strengthens the concept of transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR) and suggests that in the recumbent position, the LES contracts to prevent the passage of food and secretions from the stomach to the esophagus.18
Our study confirmed the results of prior study done by Tamhankar et.al.19 Also, it extended the analysis to include the hourly circadian pattern of reflux episodes, both acidic and non-acidic in patients taking different types of PPIs.
Dent et al. in a study of mechanisms of GERD in the recumbent position in 10 healthy volunteers, showed that only 20% of reflux episodes defined by pH level <4 occurred after midnight while the majority occurred within a few hours after the evening meal.20 Our data confirm and extend that study to patients with suspected GERD symptoms. In addition, the advanced technology provided by combined MII-pH monitoring allows detection of all types of reflux, both acid and non-acid. The latter is particularly important during the post-prandial periods when buffering from the meals produces a milieu where refluxate is largely pH >4.
The highest percentage of recumbent episodes occur in the off PPI therapy group probably because during recumbency, which is generally associated with sleep, the normal physiological acid secretion response is not altered by meals, drinks (especially carbonated), stress or changes in positions that is more commonly seen in the upright position or awake. In that way, therapy can be more effective. Also, one should consider that while the patient is sleeping, it will be more difficult to record the symptoms on the tracing unless they are so severe that they awaken the patient.
One particular finding from our study was that in the off PPI group, the patients had a trend toward less reflux episodes when compared to the 2 on PPI therapy groups (which was significant between the QD PPI therapy group and the off PPI therapy group in the recumbent position only). This finding was unexpected. Does this mean that PPI therapy increases the number of reflux episodes? One possible explanation for these findings is that the patients taking PPIs had fewer symptoms than patients off PPIs so that they will tend to eat more food and will be more comfortable with having larger meals when compared to the off therapy group.
We did not comment on symptom association with reflux (acidic and nonacidic) in this study as the main goal was to document that PPI therapy does not totally reduce reflux episodes, it only alters the pH of the refluxate. We think that it will be important to consider new therapeutic agents for GERD that could eventually reduce the amount of reflux episodes and not only their composition. n
GASTROINTESTINAL MOTILITY AND FUNCTIONAL BOWEL DISORDERS, #3
Superior Mesenteric Artery Syndrome
The recognition of Superior Mesenteric Artery Syndrom (SMA) as a distinct clinical entity remains controversial because it can be confused with other anatomic or motility- related causes of duodenal obstruction. It was often regarded as a diagnostic dilemma and a diagnosis of exclusion. In this article we will review the pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of SMA syndrome.
INTRODUCTION
Superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome was first described in 1842 by Rotikansky during an autopsy for duodenum compression.1 Wilkie in 1921 defined the patho-physiological changes of the third (transverse) portion of the duodenum when obstructed by arteriomesenteric compression and used the term “chronic duodenal ileus”.2 He published the first comprehensive SMA syndrome case series of 75 patients in 1927.3 Since then, approximately 500 cases of SMA syndrome have been reported.4,5
SMA syndrome, also known as Wilkie disease, duodenal arterial mesenteric compression, duodenal ileus, aortomesenteric artery compression, and cast syndrome, is an uncommon and sometime life threatening gastrointestinal-vascular disorder.6-8 Some studies report the incidence of SMA syndrome to be 0.013-0.3% of the general population.9,10 Approximately 0.013-0.78% of routine upper GI barium studies identify SMA compression suggesting this diagnosis.11 75% of the patients reported with SMA syndrome are aged 10-30 years and predominantly females.4,9,10 A delay in the diagnosis of SMA syndrome can result in malnutrition, electrolyte inbalance, gastric perforation, pneumatosis and hypovolemia, with a reported mortality rate up to 33%.12-15 In the usual clinical setting its nonspecific presentations can result in under-diagnosis and severe outcomes.16,17
The recognition of SMA syndrome as a distinct clinical entity remains controversial because it can be confused with other anatomic or motility-related causes of duodenal obstruction.4,5,18 The left renal vein may also be entrapped and compressed between the aorta and the SMA, a clinical setting referred to as “nutcracker syndrome”.5 The symptoms of SMA syndrome do not always correlate well with abnormal anatomic findings on radiologic studies, and may not resolve completely after treatment.4,18,19 It was often regarded as a diagnostic dilemma and a diagnosis of exclusion. In this article we will review the pathophysiology, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of SMA syndrome.
Pathophysiology
Anatomically, the third portion of the duodenum typically crosses caudal to the origin of SMA, passing between the aorta and the superior mesenteric artery at the level of 3rd lumbar vertebral body, and being suspended by its attachment to the ligament of Treitz (Figure 1). SMA normally arises from the anterior aspect of the aorta at the level of the L1 vertebral body, and is enveloped in fatty and lymphatic tissue. It forms a takeoff angle of approximately 45° (normal range 38-65°) from the abdominal aorta with the normal mean aorto-mesenteric distance of 10-28 mm.17,20,21
Any factor that decreases this takeoff angle and narrows the aorto-mesenteric distance can compress the third part of the duodenum as it passes between the SMA anteriorly and the spine posteriorly, resulting in SMA syndrome. In the case of SMA syndrome, this takeoff angle can be sharply narrowed to approximately 6-25° and the aorto-mesenteric distance can be decreased to 2-8 mm, causing entrapment of the third part of the duodenum and mechanical obstruction at the level of the third and fourth parts of the duodenum (Figure 2).6,18,20,22
Predisposing conditions for SMA syndrome that can change the aorto-mesenteric angle have been categorized into three groups. Group A is a function of weight loss. Significant weight loss leading to loss of the mesenteric fat pad and accompanying decreased body mass index is the most common cause of SMA syndrome. Reduction of the retro-peritoneal fat, which lies between the duodenum and the spine allows the SMA to compress the duodenum against the vertebrae. In the absence of an appropriate fatty support, the angle at which the SMA leaves the aorta promotes more compression of the third portion of the duodenum.23,24 This weight loss can be a consequence of medical, psychological or surgery disorders, malignancy, malabsorption syndromes, human immunodeficiency viral infection, trauma, anorexia, burns, bariatric surgery, diabetes mellitus and eating disorders.7,25-30
Group B is attributed to external causes, such as the corrective spinal surgery for scoliosis with instrumentation or body casting resulting in prolonged post operation recovery. This procedure can displace the origin of the superior mesenteric artery by relative lengthening of the spine, reducing the aorto-mesenteric takeoff angle and decreasing the mesenteric artery’s lateral mobility, which is also termed as “cast syndrome”.14,31-33 It has been demonstrated that the incidence of SMA syndrome after surgical procedures for correction of spinal deformities varies between 0.5 and 4.7%.14,34-36
Group C is a function of intraabdominal anatomy, either congenital or acquired, such as compression or mesenteric tension (e.g. aortic aneurysm), low origin of the superior mesenteric artery, following esophagectomy where gastric pull up into the chest changes the upper GI anatomy and peritoneal adhesions.37-39 A congenital short ligament of Treitz may pull the duodenum up towards the insertion of the aorto-mesenteric angle predisposing to SMA and malrotation of the small bowel is another predisposing factor.40
Symptoms
SMA syndrome patients may present acutely or more insidiously with progressive nonspecific symptoms, the severity depending on the degree of duodenal obstruction.19 Acute presentations can be related to post-traumatic surgery and often develop from 6-12 days after surgery, and are explained by hyperextension of the SMA compressing the duodenum, sometimes combined with prolonged periods in surgical casts.33,34 Another pattern of presentation is in the setting of substantial weight loss that could be related to an eating disorder, limited oral intake or vomiting disorders or cachexia of malignancy or serious depression. A more insidious presentation that may be seen by gastroenterologists involves a long history of abdominal symptoms, where the link to compression of the duodenum is overlooked.41 Patients with mild obstruction may have only postprandial epigastric pain and early satiety, while those with more advanced obstruction may have severe nausea, postprandial abdominal pain, bilious emesis and weight loss.6,41 These symptoms are associated with reduced food intake related to delayed gastric emptying from the retropulsion of food from the duodenal compression with the accompanying compensatory reversed peristalsis. A key aspect of the history that needs to be elicited is that the symptoms are definitely exacerbated by a meal and are better when fasting or overnight. Other aspects of the history include worsening if lying on the right side or supine, and relief by the Hayes maneuver (pressure applied below the umbilicus in cephalad and dorsal direction), lying prone, knee-chest, or left lateral decubitus positioning.4,10,42 These positions of alleviation remove tension from the mesentery and SMA, elevating the root of the SMA and increasing the aorto-mesenteric angle and distance. Findings on physical examination are nonspecific but can include abdominal distension, a succussion splash, and high-pitched bowel sounds.
Because of the nonspecific nature of the symptoms, clinicians need a high degree of suspicion in order to diagnose SMA syndrome. The diagnosis is often delayed and arrived at through the process of excluding other etiologies of intestinal lumen obstruction.41 The differential diagnosis of SMA syndrome includes other causes of bowel obstruction, duodenal dysmotility and gastroparesis such as diabetic gastroparesis, chronic pancreatitis, systematic autoimmune disease, chronic mesenteric ischemia, idiopathic intestinal pseudo-obstruction, megaduodenum, often caused by connective tissue diseases, especially scleroderma.10,43 Post prandial pain of unknown origin, irritable bowel syndrome, dyspepsia, including peptic ulcer and H. pylori gastritis may also be the working diagnosis in patients with nonspecific symptoms (Table 1).
Delay in recognition of SMA syndrome can often result in complications, such as severe electrolyte abnormalities, malnutrition, obstructing duodenal bezoar, gastric dilation with a risk of perforation and pneumatosis, which could portend a fatal outcome.12,15,44 Some patients may be receiving chronic narcotics for pain relief, which will further inhibit duodenal and gastric motility promoting postprandial vomiting.42
Diagnosis
The diagnosis of SMA syndrome is usually established by combinations of abdominal radiographs with barium study, ultrasonography, Computed tomographic (CT) angiography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).45-47 Although less high technology and more “old school”, we still recommend an upper GI barium study with a small bowel follow through and Doppler blood flow assessment as the initial diagnostic evaluations of SMA syndrome. Another advantage of abdominal radiographs and ultrasound is the low cost. Their findings may demonstrate a dilated proximal duodenum with an abrupt termination of the barium column in the third and fourth part of the duodenum proximal to the ligament of Treitz with a normal jejunal caliber beyond the ligament of Treitz.10 In addition, this oral contrast study could show significantly prolonged retention of barium proximal to the third portion of duodenum and hold up before entering the jejunum as well as dilation of the proximal duodenum and stomach associated with retrograde flow of contrast from reverse peristalsis (Figure 3).19 It is key to have an informed radiologist performing the small bowel series and the clinician needs to be involved and interacting to help interpret the findings with the radiologist. Follow up EGD to investigate these radiographic findings can reveal old food in the stomach, duodenal dilation with or without bezoar formation, and obstruction at the end of the third part of duodenum.
Conventional arteriography was traditionally performed simultaneously with the barium study to demonstrate the superior mesenteric artery superimposed upon the barium-filled duodenum with the decreased aorto-mesenteric angle.4 Ultrasound is a noninvasive method to evaluate the mesenteric artery anatomy and measure the aorto-mesenteric angle.45,48 Positional maneuvers, such as having patients in the lateral decubitus or even standing, may identify alterations in the aorto-mesenteric angle. Endoscopic ultrasound has recently been effective in demonstrating in more detail and better definition the anatomic abnormalities associated with SMA syndrome.49
More advanced imaging studies, such as CT and MRI angiography, are often ordered in the setting of patients with variable abdominal pain with nausea and vomiting and unclear diagnosis.47 These noninvasive images can provide additional anatomic details such as the compressed bowel in relation to vessels, and calculate the aorto-mesenteric angle and the amount of intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal fat tissue.10,46 Recently three-dimensional reconstruction has revealed increased blood flow velocity through the SMA and may unexpectedly reveal other possible causes of the abdominal pain, such as abdominal aneurysm (Figure 4).47
The diagnosis of SMA syndrome should come to mind in patients with clinical features of duodenal obstruction and imaging results revealing duodenal obstruction in the third portion with active retrograde peristalsis. More studies should then be pursued to define if the aorto-mesenteric angle is ≤25° and the aorto-mesenteric distance is ≤8 mm. Other features to note are high fixation of the duodenum by the ligament of Treitz, or abnormally low origin of the superior mesenteric artery or anomalies of the superior mesenteric artery.
Patients with SMA syndrome usually have undergone extensive gastrointestinal evaluation and procedures over a period of time, including upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy, to exclude malabsorptive, ulcerative and inflammatory intestinal conditions. These procedures are expensive, have potential risk for patients, and add to the overall economic burden associated with diagnosing this elusive entity.5,40 When faced with a diagnostic dilemma of unknown etiology of abdominal pain or nausea and vomiting, the gastroenterologist should take or re-take a thorough history and review the imaging studies keeping in mind some less common entities in the differential diagnosis, such as the possibility of undiagnosed SMA.
Treatment
Initial conservative treatment with reversal of any precipitating factor is recommended in all patients with superior mesenteric artery syndrome.5,10 Initial gastric decompression by nasogastric tube aspiration can reduce the dilated stomach and proximal duodenum and help to monitor fluid balance.5 Patients with acute SMA syndrome usually have electrolyte imbalances, which should be monitored and corrected aggressively. Nutritional support and attempts to increase weight are important initial considerations. These approaches may include an enteral nasojejunal feeding tube if it can be successfully passed through the narrowed duodenum, or a laparoscopic placement of a jejunal feeding tube beyond the ligament of Treitz may be necessary for a short period of 3 to 6 months. Total parenteral nutrition is not recommended because of complications. All these measures are aimed at increasing the fat pad between the spine and duodenum.49,50
Patients with suspected eating disorders need professional nutritional and psychiatric evaluation to help achieve optimal calorie replacement.5 Pro-motility medications, such as metoclopramide, are not appropriate since increasing upper GI motility when duodenal obstruction is present increases the pain component. Antiemetics can be supportive. Younger patients in particular with acute SMA syndrome would benefit from conservative treatment, which should be instituted for at least 3 to 6 months.5,8
Specific indications for surgery in patients with chronic SMA syndrome include failed conservative treatment, long-standing symptoms, continuing weight loss due to abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting and reduced food intake, and marked duodenal dilatation with stasis.5,40 (Figure 5) Co-management with dieticians and psychiatry consultation when appropriate are recommended to ensure the best outcomes including concerns for adequacy of wound healing after surgery.
The most common surgical operation for SMA syndrome is duodenojejunostomy, in which the compressed portion of the duodenum is actually bypassed by constructing an anastomosis between the 2nd portion of the duodenum and proximal jejunum anterior to the superior mesenteric artery. Duodenojejunostomy can reestablish the bowel continuity with a success rate > 90%.16 (Figure 5C, the preferred surgery) Another version of this duodenojejunostomy is division of the 4th part of the duodenum. (Figure 5D) This is not the recommended best option but rather the approach of leaving the duodenum-jejunal continuity intact is the preferred surgery. Surgical complications include bleeding, leakage or stricture at the anatomies site.51 Long term concerns include small bowel bacterial overgrowth in the “blind loop” created in the bypassed 3rd and 4th parts of duodenum.
Another surgical option is gastrojejunostomy (bypass the obstruction by bringing up loop of jejunum to the stomach and anastomosis) (Figure 5B). This may be a potential consideration when adhesions from previous surgeries prevent adequate access to create the Duodeno-jejunal anastomosis. Another surgical approach is the Strong’s procedure (duodenal derotation with lysis of the ligament of Treitz).8,22,52 However, this procedure is now largely of historic interest and has a higher failure rate to relieve the duodenal obstruction.5 Successful laparoscopic techniques for the duodenojejunostomy and Strong procedures have been described.53,54 Although current literature is limited to case reports and small studies, laparoscopic approaches offer a less invasive surgical option. An important point to address is that all of these surgeries have one thing in common; the SMA itself is never displaced, re-routed or surgically altered. This is a key anatomic feature of the surgeries.
Long term outcomes in SMA syndrome patients after surgery are limited in the literature. One series of 16 patients found significant weight gain, but most symptoms remained unchanged except for decreased vomiting.4 The need to address eating disorders, bulimia, and underlying psychiatric issues is a key aspect of post-surgery management. A recent series of 8 patients described improved symptoms but no weight gain.5 Surgical morbidity and mortality can be affected by other comorbidities, e.g. diabetes, and end-stage renal disease.55
CONCLUSION
Superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome is an uncommon but well recognized clinical entity characterized by compression of the third portion of the duodenum between the aorta and the superior mesenteric artery. This can result in an acute presentation or more commonly chronic nonspecific symptoms explained by duodenal obstruction with decreased aorto-mesenteric angle and distance. The SMA syndrome has a spectrum of symptoms, which can be referred to as “great mimickers” of a GI motility disturbance. The main GI motility conditions that would be encompassed are: delayed gastric empting; dilated duodenum suggesting intestinal pseudo-obstruction; unexplained nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, suggesting the spectrum of cycle vomiting syndrome on one hand, and irritable bowel syndrome on the other hand. This is a great challenge to the physician in practice.
We recommend that clinicians focus on the following “clinical pearls”: 1) unexplained abdominal pain provoked by eating and accompanied by nausea and vomiting; 2) endoscopic evidence of retained food in the stomach and a dilated proximal duodenum; 3) a slow scintigraphic gastric emptying result (Retention of >60% of isotope at 2hrs and >10% at 4hrs). Armed with these clues, the possibility of SMA syndrome has to come to mind, so the next logical step is to get a “road map” and obtain an upper GI and small bowel series. If the clinical suspicion is borne out by a suggestive contrast study then more sophisticated noninvasive imaging can be pursued to demonstrate the specific features we have summarized in this review. SMA syndrome patients need initial conservative treatment where reversible aspects, particularly nutrition, are the focus. Surgical options are effective for non-responding patients, although complete resolution of all symptoms may not always be achieved. The role of explanation, education and practicing the “art of medicine” are all important features in the total care and outcome of these patients. Making a diagnosis in a patient who has been told there is no explanation for the abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting is very satisfying, particularly when there is a treatable and reversible entity involved. Such is the world of SMA syndrome, an often overlooked entity.
A CASE REPORT
Jejunal Dieulafoy Lesion: A Rare Cause of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleed
CASE REPORT
An 83-year-old Caucasian woman with past medical history of hypertension, gastroesophageal reflux disease, diverticular disease, iron deficiency anemia and recurrent occult gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding secondary to jejunal arteriovenous malformations (AVMs), treated with cauterization, presented to the emergency department with a three day history of intermittent, mild epigastric pain and five episodes of black, tarry stool.
On initial examination, the patient was in no acute distress, afebrile, and had a blood pressure of 110/54 with a heart rate of 96. She had diffuse upper abdominal tenderness but normal bowel sounds and no signs of an acute abdomen; her rectal exam was significant for melena without palpable masses or bright red blood. Her laboratory work-up was significant for a hemoglobin of 9.1 g/dL, from a baseline of 14.0, with an MCV of 76 fL, a reticulocyte count of 3.2%, and an elevated blood urea nitrogen to creatinine ratio of >20:1. Complete blood count and metabolic panel were otherwise normal. The patient was fluid resuscitated, started on a proton pump inhibitor drip, and taken for emergent esophagogastroduodenoscopy due to concern for an acute upper GI bleed.
Due to her previous history of jejunal AVMs, a pediatric colonoscope was used with the intent of performing push enteroscopy if needed, as balloon enteroscopy was not available at the facility. In the proximal jejunum, an actively bleeding arterial vessel was seen. The surrounding mucosa appeared normal, without evidence of ulceration. These findings were consistent with a jejunal Dieulafoy lesion (see Figure 1). Three hemoclips were applied to the bleeding vessel, resulting in complete hemostasis (see Figures 2 and 3). Following the procedure, the patient had resolution of her abdominal pain and only one subsequent episode of melena. She was discharged on hospital day number three with stable hemoglobin above 10.0 g/dL.
DISCUSSION
Dieulafoy lesions are becoming increasingly recognized as causes of acute GI bleeds, causing nearly 2% of all GI hemorrhages.1 Greater than 80% of these lesions are found in the upper GI tract.1-2, 4 True prevalence is hard to establish, given the difficulty in diagnosing Dieulafoy lesions and their often asymptomatic nature. Originally described as exulceratio simplex, and fatal 80% of the time in the era of surgical treatment,4 Dieulafoy lesions were initially believed to be ulcerations of the GI mucosa with resultant exposure and bleeding from an otherwise normal submucosal artery.5 It is now understood that these lesions are histopathologically different than normal vessels. Dieulafoy lesions are aberrant, dilated, submucosal vessels that fail to undergo normal branching and thus carry the potential to subsequently erode the overlying epithelium due to their large size and pulsatile nature.6
More prevalent in the elderly and those with comorbid chronic medical conditions,1, 3 Dieulafoy lesions are unevenly distributed in the GI tract. The stomach, specifically the lesser curvature due to its highly vascular architecture, is the most common location. Studies suggest that only 1-2% of such lesions are found in the jejunum.1, 7 Thus, our patient represents an unusual case of a jejunal Dieulafoy lesion causing acute lower GI bleed.
Endoscopic treatment is the standard of care for bleeding Dieulafoy lesions, with hemostasis approaching 80-100% depending on the method of intervention.2, 3, 8 Four methods of achieving endoscopic hemostasis are available: endoscopic hemoclip placement, band ligation, cauterization, and injection of vasoconstrictive compounds. Band ligation and endoscopic hemoclip placement are equally efficacious, with one study suggesting that banding may be preferred due to faster procedure time and shorter length of hospital stay.2 For our patient, endoscopic hemoclips were the intervention of choice. Using clips avoids the drawback of needing to remove the endoscope after localization of the bleeding lesion to load the banding kit.
CONCLUSION
This case serves to heighten awareness of the commonly missed diagnosis of Dieulafoy lesion in areas outside of the stomach as a cause of obscure GI bleed. A thoughtful approach to such patients and a trained endoscopist with appropriate and specific equipment should be used to appropriately diagnose and treat this condition. Our patient’s prior history of repeated upper and lower GI bleeds secondary to AVMs serves as a humble reminder that patients often have multiple risk factors and causes for GI bleed. Dieulafoy lesion should be included on the differential diagnosis of potentially life-threatening causes of acute GI bleed, as specialized and time- sensitive management is needed.
UNUSUAL CAUSES OF ABDOMINAL PAIN, #7
Unusual Causes of Abdominal Pain
A 24-year-old man with native mitral valve Streptococcus mitis endocarditis presented to the emergency department with acute burning epigastric pain following three weeks of intravenous penicillin therapy. The patient described four days of near-constant pain of acute onset, unrelated to meals and unrelieved by H2-receptor blockers, proton pump inhibitors, and over the counter antacids. Exacerbation was described with leaning forward and deep inspiration, and partial remission was achieved only by lying still. The patient admitted to nausea without vomiting and review of systems was otherwise unrevealing. On examination, vital signs were within normal limits and his abdomen was soft and nondistended but tender to palpation in the epigastrium. There was no rebound tenderness, guarding or rigidity. A GI cocktail administered in the emergency department was ineffective, and intravenous hydromorphone resulted in modest pain reduction. The patient’s complete blood count, liver panel, electrolytes, renal function and serum lipase were all within normal limits, and following an unremarkable acute abdominal plain film series he was sent for computed tomography (CT) scan of the abdomen with intravenous contrast.
ANSWER AND DISCUSSION
Hepatic Infarction
The relative rarity of hepatic infarction is commonly attributed to the dual blood supply and extensive collateral circulation of the liver. There are multiple causes of hepatic infarction: iatrogenic ligation (e.g., following laparoscopic cholecystectomy), thrombosis, toxemia of pregnancy, polyarteritis nodosa, and emboli which may be bland, iatrogenic (e.g., following angiography or transarterial chemoembolization), or septic, which are almost always associated with infective endocarditis, as in this case. On presentation, hepatic infarction may result in epigastric or right upper quadrant pain in addition to fever, nausea and vomiting. Alternatively, hepatic infarction may be asymptomatic, detected only by biochemical tests and imaging studies. In the case of our patient, the initial CT with contrast demonstrated occlusion of the left hepatic artery with a small area of indistinct hypoattenuation in the posterior aspect of the left lobe of the liver, segment three (Figure 1, arrow), as well as several chronic-appearing renal infarcts. As there was no clear evidence of infarction on presentation and no prior abdominal CT for comparison, the timing of arterial occlusion and its relationship to the presenting complaints were uncertain, and the patient was admitted. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed on the day of admission was normal. On the second day of hospitalization, the patient’s abdominal pain intensified and routine laboratory tests were repeated with noted elevation in aspartate aminotransferase (145 U/L) and alanine aminotransferase (179 U/L). Repeat CT imaging showed occlusive thrombus in the left hepatic artery now with a large, wedge-shaped area of hypoattenuation consistent with infarction in the territory of the left hepatic artery (Figure 2, arrow). Recurrent emboli despite appropriate medical therapy represent a class IIa indication for surgical repair of a native heart valve. The risk of embolization with serious consequences in the setting of infective endocarditis is thought to be small and declines rapidly following antibiotic therapy, and though there are currently no data clearly showing a threshold for embolic events above which surgical intervention must be pursued, more than one instance of embolization while a patient is on appropriate therapy generally warrants surgical intervention. Our patient’s mitral valve replacement surgery was expedited on this basis and performed without complications.
Abdominal pain attributable to liver disease is encountered with malignancy, congestive hepatopathy, cystic disease and acute hepatitis, and is thought to be mediated primarily by the generation of visceral afferent signals transmitted within sympathetic nerves as a result of mechanical stretch of Glisson’s capsule. In symptomatic cases of hepatic infarction, pain is presumably secondary to irritation of these fibers. Additionally, presumptive nociceptive fibers within the hepatic parenchyma have been described by some authors, but these have not been extensively documented. Given the relatively low incidence of hepatic infarction in the general population and potential for vague or even asymptomatic presentation, a high clinical suspicion must be maintained when abdominal pain is encountered in the appropriate clinical scenario in order to promptly diagnose this condition.
NUTRITION ISSUES IN GASTROENTEROLOGY, SERIES #134
Short Bowel Syndrome in Adults – Part 2 Nutrition Therapy for Short Bowel Syndrome in the Adult Patient
Success of the patient with short bowel syndrome (SBS) depends on adaptation of the remaining bowel, which requires a combination of pharmacologic and nutrition therapies. Although the SBS diet is quite similar for those with and without colonic segments, there are a few key differences that should be noted. This is the second article in a five-part series on SBS, the focus of which is diet intervention in an effort to enhance adaptation, increase absorption and as a result, lessen stool output.
INTRODUCTION
Without aggressive use of pharmacological agents, diet alone will generally be ineffective in curbing the voluminous diarrhea experienced by patients with SBS. Nevertheless, diet therapy is an essential component of care in these patients. The cornerstone of diet therapy is manipulation of food intake to facilitate maximum nutrient and fluid utilization by decreasing the stool output. Stool output in SBS is driven by the fluid-substrate load exceeding the absorptive capacity of the shortened bowel; but other factors also contribute. For example, in addition to the loss of absorptive surface area, feedback mechanisms that control transit and acid and bicarbonate secretion are often lost (see Table 1). A clear understanding of these factors is essential to the selection of the best therapeutic interventions.
In a recent study assessing the typical micro- and macronutrient intake from the oral diet in patients with SBS prior to entry into a bowel rehabilitation program, the patients were found to be making food and beverage choices that would be expected to worsen their diarrhea and increase PN requirements. Furthermore, each subject had received little previous dietary instruction from their healthcare providers.1 Our role as clinicians in the care of patients with SBS is to restore as much intestinal function as possible. This is achieved by optimal use of medications and by altering diet and fluid choices as much as the patient can tolerate. Tailoring the diet to an individual’s remaining bowel anatomy and providing the patient with a basic understanding of why diet and fluid modifications are important is essential to optimizing successful outcomes.
Nutritional Assessment — Getting Started
The initial evaluation of all SBS patients should include a comprehensive nutritional assessment. Information obtained should include a history pertinent to weight change, medication usage (including supplements and over-the-counter medications), presence of GI and other symptoms that may affect oral intake or fluid loss, potential signs/symptoms of micronutrient deficiencies, and physical assessment for signs of dehydration and malnutrition. Additional information that should be collected at baseline includes pertinent past medical, psychiatric, and surgical history, including comorbidities and the presence of bowel complications such as anastomotic strictures; chronic obstructions; enterocutaneous fistulae; and peritoneal drains. A nutrition support history should also be obtained, including information regarding the enteral and/or central venous access device, formula used, route and method of administration, and known prior complications. Finally, given the high level of motivation required to adhere to the dietary, fluid and medical treatments prescribed, it is useful to inquire about their education, motivation, support system and potential economic or other barriers.
Patients with SBS should be instructed on the measurement of daily fluid intake and urine/stool output, as periodic assessment of these parameters helps guide fluid needs. It is also useful to review a food diary, preferably over a period of a few days, to determine the SBS patient’s usual oral diet and daily energy intake. A baseline assessment of electrolytes and micronutrient levels (see micronutrient section below) should be obtained at the initial clinic visit. Given the high risk of metabolic bone disease in these patients, a bone density should be assessed at baseline and monitored every 1-2 years.
Oral Diet — Lessons Learned
Original evidence supporting the beneficial effects of diet therapy in patients with SBS is based on a limited number of studies that have included a small number of patients with various bowel anatomies.2-9 These studies have generally demonstrated a decrease in stool output and an increase in absorption depending on the remaining bowel anatomy and the type and amount of carbohydrate and fat used. Specifically, those SBS patients with a colon segment remaining appear to derive the most benefit in terms of nutrient absorption and reduction in stool losses from a high complex carbohydrate, low-moderate fat diet. In an inpatient setting, Byrne et al. followed close to 400 patients over a 10 year period after providing intensive counseling and close monitoring for 2-4 weeks and further demonstrated the importance of the SBS diet on improving stool output and both nutritional and hydration status.10 They concluded that patients with colon benefited from a different diet than those without colon.
Luminal nutrients enhance post-resection intestinal adaptation by increasing splanchnic blood flow, stimulating pancreatico-biliary secretions, gut neuronal activity, and peristalsis. They also up- regulate selective nutrient transporters and digestive enzymes and stimulate local production and release of intestine-specific growth factors.11 Importantly, nutrient complexity (i.e., whole foods) is associated with greater intestinal adaptation, presumably due to recruitment of greater digestive activity, the effects of which may ultimately decrease the need for parenteral nutrition (PN) support in SBS.
Patients with an end jejunostomy typically absorb more nutrients than fluid, so intravenous (IV) fluids may be required at least initially. In contrast, in those SBS patients with a jejuno-ileocolonic or jejuno- colonic anastomosis, sodium and water are absorbed more avidly, and these patients may require more supplemental nutrients than fluids. For all patients with SBS, the most important dietary interventions involve smaller, more frequent feedings, avoidance of simple sugars in any form and chewing foods extremely well. The long-term success of an optimized SBS diet requires intensive education, adequate nutrition counseling and monitoring to maintain compliance and achieve intestinal rehabilitation, PN independence, and enteral autonomy. One of the crucial roles of the dietitian is to translate all of the data into foods and meal plans that meet the individual’s preferences and lifestyle. The patient needs to be informed not only of what they need to avoid, but more importantly, what they can eat. In general, most stable adult SBS patients absorb only about one-half to two-thirds as much energy as normal; thus, dietary intake must be increased by at least 50% from their estimated needs (i.e., “hyperphagic” diet).12,13 However, in some, this increased intake may contribute to excessive loss of micronutrients and fluids by worsening diarrhea.7 The establishment of daily calorie and fluid intake goals is achieved by careful monitoring. Adjustments may be needed based on tolerance, which is determined by symptoms, stool output, ongoing assessment of what they eat, and in so doing, assessment of the patients understanding of diet therapy, along with micronutrient levels, weight changes, and hydration status.
For some patients, instead of advising how many calories to eat per day, a more practical approach may be preferred. This entails a review of their normal intake followed by suggestions on where they can add actual foods, such as a half sandwich, a package of “Nabs,” or a teaspoon of olive oil. Reevaluating the plan and adjusting as the patient’s needs change, particularly during the adaptation period, is essential for the ongoing success of the SBS diet.
Diet Specifics
Fat
Fat is an excellent calorie source, yet depending upon the remaining bowel anatomy in a SBS patient, too much fat may exacerbate steatorrhea, resulting in loss of calories, fat-soluble vitamins and divalent minerals in the stool.4,7,14 Medium chain triglycerides (MCT) are often recommended for use in patients with SBS as they are absorbed directly across the small bowel and colonic mucosa; however, it has been shown that only those with a remaining colon segment seem to benefit from their use.15 Furthermore, MCT contain fewer calories than dietary fat, are devoid of essential fatty acids, are not very palatable, and do not enhance intestinal adaptation.
Protein
Protein requirements will vary depending on where the patient is in the disease course. Protein of high biological value is always preferred over plant protein. Because nitrogen absorption is least affected by the decreased absorptive surface in SBS patients, no change in dietary protein is generally necessary and the use of peptide- based diets in these patients is unnecessary.4,8,16,17 Oral glutamine is often recommended to patients with SBS; however, its clinical benefit is controversial and there is insufficient data to support its use in patients with SBS.18 Glutamine is also abundant and readily available in whole protein foods of high biological value such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy.
Carbohydrate
The use of more complex carbohydrates as opposed to concentrated sweets reduces stool volume and enhances absorption in SBS.10 Lower fiber, complex carbohydrates are more readily digested and absorbed and should be a primary calorie/nutrient source irrespective of remaining bowel anatomy. Patients with a colon segment remaining may benefit from higher soluble fiber content, but not at the expense of reduced oral intake due to early satiety, particularly if weight gain is needed.
An emerging area of interest within the carbohydrate/starch group are the fermentable, oligo-, di-, mono-saccharides and polyols, or “FODMAPs.” FODMAPs are poorly absorbed, highly osmotic, and fermentable by gut bacteria. They are found in plant foods and liquid medications (e.g., sugar alcohols such as sorbitol and xylitol), as well as some enteral formulas (e.g., fructooligosaccharides, or “FOS”) and are associated with gas, bloating, cramping, and increased stool losses.19-21 A modified FODMAP restriction (see Table 3) may be worthwhile in the patient who is failing routine SBS diet therapy, although further study of this approach is needed.
Lactose
While often restricted by clinicians in SBS, lactose has been shown to be tolerated by many SBS patients. Given the potential benefits of dairy foods, and because the symptoms of lactose intolerance are often dose- dependent, many people are able to tolerate at least some dairy products, especially if spread over the course of the day. In one report, patients with SBS were able to tolerate up to 20 grams of lactose per day (with no more than 4 grams from milk).22,23 Of note, lactose is a FODMAP (see above) and, therefore, highly fermentable. Should a patient not tolerate lactose, it may not necessarily be due to lactase insufficiency.
Fiber
Patients with jejunostomies or ileostomies are commonly advised to add bulk-forming agents to their diet in an effort to thicken stool or ostomy output. While it may seem to improve the consistency of the stool, fiber can also result in the net loss of fluid from the bowel, as it not only pulls fluid from the mucosa, it also �soaks up’ fluid within the lumen, making it unavailable for absorption. Rather than thicken the fluid in the stool before it is lost to the patient’s stomal appliance, it would be better to try to enhance absorption of that fluid.24 Moreover, fiber may reduce the absorption of nutrients and, in those who are already having difficulty ingesting sufficient calories, the addition of bulking agents may further exacerbate the problem by leading to early satiety.
Despite the above, a trial of soluble fiber may occasionally be worthwhile in an attempt to slow gastric emptying and overall transit time in the SBS patient with rapid gastric and small bowel transit. Sources of soluble fiber include oatmeal, oat cereal, oat bran, lentils, apples, oranges, pears, strawberries, blueberries, nuts, legumes, ground flaxseeds, chia seeds, carrots, psyllium, guar gum, pectin, and rinds (especially dry citrus zest). These should be added slowly to give the patients GI tract time to adapt.
SBS patients with a colonic segment remaining can generate an additional 500-1000 calories per day from the absorption and utilization of short chain fatty acids that are produced by the bacterial fermentation of fiber and malabsorbed carbohydrates. Thus, the use of a moderate fat, higher complex carbohydrate diet containing fiber is recommended for the SBS patient with an intact colon.6,10,25 Since it is more fermentable, soluble fiber is preferred over insoluble fiber.
Oxalate
Oxalate is a chemical compound found in many foods. After ingestion, oxalate generally binds to calcium within the bowel and is excreted. In patients with fat malabsorption, calcium preferentially binds to fat in the small bowel instead of oxalate. This leaves the oxalate freely available to be absorbed, but only in patients who have a portion of remaining colon, since oxalate can only be absorbed in the large intestine. After its absorption, oxalate is delivered to the kidneys for excretion (see Part I of this series). Maintaining adequate hydration and urine output is key to prevention of oxalate stones, and in some patients, dietary avoidance of high oxalate foods such as beets, spinach, rhubarb, strawberries, nuts, chocolate, tea, wheat bran, and all fresh, canned, or cooked dry beans (excluding Lima and green beans) is recommended.
Salt
Patients with SBS are at significant risk of sodium depletion. Normal stool sodium is approximately 4.8 mEq (110 mg) per day. In those SBS patients with a jejunostomy or ileostomy, daily losses can be as high as 105 mEq (2430 mg) per liter of stool. When persistent, sodium and fluid depletion may be associated with weight loss, failure to thrive, and impaired renal function.25-27 Signs and symptoms of sodium depletion include low urine output, considerable thirst and fatigue. What makes sodium depletion difficult to appreciate in these patients is that creatinine levels may not accurately reflect renal function due to the low lean body mass many of these patients exhibit. Furthermore, serum sodium levels are usually maintained within the normal range by renin- and aldosterone-mediated renal conservation of sodium, as well as the contraction of the extracellular fluid compartment, misleading the clinician.28,29 In patients with fatigue, overall failure to thrive and high stool output, an assessment of sodium status is advised (see Table 2).
In the patient with SBS, salty snacks are encouraged and liberal use of the salt shaker can help replace sodium lost in the stool. Salt tablets have been used, but can cause vomiting in some; in those on enteral nutrition support, salt can be added to the formula.5 Of course, ensure that SBS patients are not restricting salt due to comorbid conditions they had prior to developing SBS. See Table 3 and 4 for summary diet guidelines and a sample menu plan.
Vitamins/Minerals: What Makes Sense
Patients with SBS are at risk for multiple vitamin and mineral deficiencies and as such, lifelong monitoring and supplementation is needed. We recommend a baseline assessment of electrolytes and micronutrient levels (e.g., vitamins A, D, E, B12, folate, zinc, selenium, iron indices including ferritin, and essential fatty acids) should be obtained at the initial clinic visit. However, those micronutrients whose serum values are influenced by inflammatory states or infection (e.g., vitamin A, possibly D, zinc, and ferritin) should not be checked until those problems are corrected. There are no evidence- based guidelines directing which micronutrients to monitor or the optimal timing of how often to monitor them. As a consequence, the frequency of monitoring will generally depend upon the presence of existing or prior deficiencies. In the stable SBS patient on or off PN, a semi-annual assessment of micronutrients and essential fatty acids is advised. Because water- soluble vitamins are absorbed in the proximal small bowel, deficiencies in SBS patients are uncommon. In contrast, fat-soluble vitamin and essential fatty acid deficiencies are more commonly encountered and may require large doses to maintain normal plasma levels. When deficiency is identified, supplementation with aqueous preparations of vitamins A, D, and E in doses that normalize the plasma level is recommended.
Supplemental zinc, and occasionally copper and selenium, may be required in the presence of excessive stool losses. Supplementation is often based on clinical suspicion as many factors alter serum levels. Iron supplementation is not commonly needed, as iron is absorbed in the upper gastrointestinal tract, an uncommon site of resection in SBS patients. Supplemental iron may be needed if oral intake of iron is inadequate or when chronic gastrointestinal bleeding is present.
Food-bound vitamin B12 absorption will be impaired in those with more than 50 to 60 cm of terminal ileum removed.30 These patients will require lifetime administration of supplemental vitamin B12. This is usually administered by injection on a monthly basis, however, synthetic oral B12 may be a preferred option in some. If oral is used, 1000 mcg/day is recommended and should be monitored the first 3, 6 and 12 months after initiating to ensure efficacy.31 In those plagued with small bowel bacterial overgrowth, a methylmalonic acid should be checked in addition to serum B12, as bacterial overgrowth not only vies with the host for ingested B12, but the B12 can be partially metabolized to inactive analogues that compete with B12 for binding and absorption.32,33
Although many recommendations for micronutrient supplementation appear in the medical literature, very little evidence exists to guide the clinician. Hence, practitioners are left with logic and common sense when determining their approach. Until better evidence is available, encourage patients to first eat nutritious foods, then add a therapeutic multivitamin and mineral supplement, perhaps twice daily. A chewable, crushed, or liquid form may improve its bioavailability. Multiple individual vitamin and mineral supplements should be avoided whenever possible. One has to consider not only the osmotic effects these agents can have on stool output, but also the fluid needed to take them, not to mention the sheer cost of all of these supplements and the time in one’s day to take them all. For these reasons, we recommend periodically doing a “total pill count” and then asking, “is this reasonable, and does the patient have time for a life too?”
Special Consideration
Vitamin D
Patients with SBS requiring PN are at particularly high risk of vitamin D deficiency. Many factors contribute including inadequate sunlight exposure due to chronic illness; intake or tolerance to vitamin D-rich foods may be poor; dietary vitamin D may be malabsorbed; co-morbidities and medications may interfere with vitamin D metabolism; and, poor vitamin D status prior to developing SBS.34 Furthermore, sustaining vitamin D is very difficult in many patients with SBS, in part due to the fact that PN solutions only contain 200 IU per day as part of the multivitamin preparation available. Serum vitamin D (as 25-OH vitamin D) and intact PTH with a baseline bone density scan should be done on all patients with SBS.
Vitamin D is one of the few individual supplements SBS patients may need in addition to a multiple vitamin/ mineral supplement. Many practitioners use 50,000 IU per week; however, some patients may do better with daily dosing if weekly dosing does not achieve efficacy.35 Finally, liquid vitamin D may work when nothing else will; however, some insurance companies may need justification that other forms were not effective. Finally, direct sunlight to arms and legs,36 or controlled UV exposure with a Sperti lamp (D/ UV Lamp–www.vitaminduv.com) may work in some recalcitrant patients.
Enteral Nutrition Support — When to Consider
There are few published reports of the use of home enteral nutrition (EN) support in SBS. In one recent report from a large home EN program in Canada, only 9 of 727 patients received home EN for SBS.36 Despite its apparent paucity of use in adults with SBS, in the SBS patient who cannot meet their nutrition and/or fluid needs orally, a trial of EN should be considered in an attempt to prevent the need of a central venous catheter and either PN or IV fluid support. This intervention may be most successful in those with some remaining colon, while its use in patients with an end jejunostomy may result in increased ostomy output that interferes with sleep and further impaired quality of life. If EN is pursued, we recommend a trial of nasogastric administration before considering more permanent percutaneous access. In the diet- and medication-optimized patient, it will be quite apparent early on if this plan will be successful based on change in stool losses. Administration of the formula into the stomach via continuous infusion is recommended in order to slow nutrient delivery in order to maximize nutrient:mucosal contact time, hence, optimizing absorption while limiting diarrhea.38-43 Overnight infusion takes advantage of utilizing the GI tract when there is nothing else to compete with mucosal receptors for absorption; plus, it does not interfere with daytime activities. The use of a lower osmolality, standard polymeric formula that contains a mixture of LCT and MCT maintains mucosal structure and function and enhances bowel adaption; the addition of fiber as part of the enteral product or as a soluble fiber supplement is recommended in those patients with some colon remaining. In addition to not being superior to standard polymeric products, the hyperosmolar nature of elemental products may actually increase stool output. Finally, as there is no suitable bile salt supplement readily available, those patients with bile salt deficiency will benefit from a lower fat formula.44
Parenteral Nutrition
Virtually all patients with SBS require parenteral nutrition (PN) support in the initial period following resection, and most will require PN at home after their discharge from the hospital. PN caloric requirements will depend on many factors such as need to gain (or lose) weight, ambulation/activity level, etc. and no one prescription fits all. PN should be initiated and adjusted to meet the patient’s fluid, electrolyte, energy, protein, and micronutrient needs. Overall energy content and macronutrient composition will depend to some degree upon the SBS patient’s oral intake and the level of repletion required. In situations of high ostomy output, increased fluid, potassium, magnesium, and zinc losses occur and need to be monitored and replaced appropriately. The amount of PN can be decreased when the patient demonstrates ability to take oral nutrition without excessive stool or ostomy output with appropriate weight maintenance or gain. In calculating PN volume and content, changes in the patient’s weight, labs, stool or ostomy output, urine output, and complaints of thirst should be considered. These patients remain at risk for micronutrient deficiencies and require periodic monitoring and supplementation in addition to PN.45
Home PN is usually infused over 10 to 14 hours overnight in order to allow the patient freedom from the infusion pump during the day and potentially to reduce the risk of liver injury with long-term use. In some patients, the volume needed may cause high volume nocturnal urination. These patients may do better with less volume at night, and one or two liters of “chaser” IV fluids during the morning or evening before they hook up their PN for the night. Programmable infusion pumps are used by most consumers. Portable pumps that can be carried in a backpack or tote are also available for the PN consumer who needs to infuse during the day. Patient support groups such as the Oley Foundation (www.oley.org) are important sources of information on practical topics (e.g., body image, travel), education, and support and may reduce the risk of complications, enhance survival, and the quality of life of the patient receiving either EN or PN support.
CONCLUSION
Nutrition therapy is central to the successful management of the patient with SBS. Substantial and ongoing education at a level the patient/caregiver can understand from the outset is essential, and adequate time must be allotted for this purpose. As the bowel adapts and absorption improves, it is possible that diet interventions can be liberalized. Lifelong monitoring is necessary in all SBS patients and management goals often change over time. See Table 5 for additional SBS- related resources.
GASTROINTESTINAL MOTILITY AND FUNCTIONAL BOWEL DISORDERS, #2
Dumping Syndrome: Updated Perspectives on Etiologies and Diagnosis
Dumping syndrome (DS) has historically been associated with gastric surgery and vagotomy, as well as diabetes mellitus (DM). This article provides an update on the etiologies and clinical spectrum that represent the current DS patient population.
INTRODUCTION
Dumping syndrome (DS) has long been associated with surgical procedures involving the stomach and small bowel. It was first described in 1913 as a condition which persistently afflicted a minority of gastric surgery patients. These patients exhibited postprandial gastrointestinal and vasomotor symptoms in connection with the rapid transit of chyme through the stomach. Before H. pylori was identified as the predominate etiology of chronic peptic ulcer disease, DS commonly developed after vagotomies and partial gastrectomies, which were routinely performed for the management of that condition. DS, therefore, received abundant attention in the literature during this time and valuable progress was made toward understanding its pathogenesis.
DS is the result of the rapid transit of chyme from the stomach to the duodenum. This causes the delivery of a large and hyperosmolar concentration of chyme into the small intestine. This may result in substantial hormonal and neural changes that shift fluid from general circulation to the intestinal lumen and the intestinal venous supply.i Indeed, the degree of rapid gastric transit has been positively correlated with the degree of blood volume contraction.ii Due to the release of hormones (such as VIP, serotonin, norepinephrine, and GLP-1) and autonomic responses to intestinal distension, the change of arterial blood volume may then result in the vasomotor symptoms such as weakness, faintness, and dyspnea. In addition, widespread reflex sympathetic activation may also mediate symptoms such as sweating and increased heart rate.i GI symptoms such as abdominal cramping, bloating, and diarrhea, characterize early DS, which typically begin within 30 minutes of eating.
In late DS, as in early DS, rapid gastric transit results in hyperosmolar chyme being expelled into the lumen of the small intestine. This hyperosmolarity causes a massive release of GIP and insulin in anticipation of substantial glucose absorption.i, iii The humoral response turns out to be disproportionate to the occasion, however, and a reactive hypoglycemia develops. The symptoms of late dumping syndrome are explained by this reactive hypoglycemia, and include sweating, shakiness, difficulty concentrating, decreased consciousness, hunger, and sometimes syncope. The diagnosis of late dumping syndrome is made by the clinical presentation of late dumping symptoms and can be confirmed by an oral glucose test demonstrating low glucose levels sometimes less than 60 mg/dL at 2 or 3 hours.
Although the surgical treatment of peptic ulcer disease declined following the development of proton pump inhibitors, these surgeries are still performed for intractable disease. Additionally, accidental vagal nerve damage during Nissen fundoplications, as well as an increased number of gastric bypass surgeries, have kept DS very pertinent to current clinical practice.
DS may also be associated with non-surgical etiologies, the most prominent being diabetes.iii Diabetes is a well-recognized etiology of rapid gastric emptying iii, iv and is attributed to early vagal damage from Wallerian nerve degeneration. Of course, more advanced neurodegeneration developing over time can lead to gastroparesis.
Due to the evolving etiologies of rapid gastric transit, as well as our improved understanding of its etiologies, a new characterization and profile of the symptomatic patient population with rapid gastric emptying (RGE) is warranted. This article reviewing our study further examines the distinct patient populations with RGE in the current era, with special attention to the clinical spectrum of the DS, new etiologies of DS, and diagnostic challenges.
METHODS
A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients who were referred to one of the investigators (RWM) at a tertiary GI motility center in El Paso, TX. Of the 309 patients evaluated from March 2009 to June 2012, charts were reviewed for patients with a gastric emptying test (GET) demonstrating rapid gastric transit, as well as symptoms consistent with DS.
The gastric emptying time was assessed by the standard 4-h scintigraphic method, established by the consensus recommendations by the American Neurogastroentereology and Motility Society and the Society of Nuclear Medicine.iii This standardized method for assessing gastric emptying includes a scrambled egg substitute (120 g, equivalent to two large eggs, or 60 kcal) labeled with 99mTc sulphur-colloid, two slices of whole wheat bread (120 kcal), 30 g of jelly (75 kcal), and 120 ml of water. The meal has a total caloric value of 255 kcal (72% carbohydrate, 24% protein, 2% fat, and 2% fiber). Anterior and posterior images of the stomach were taken immediately after eating, and then hourly for 4 hours (see Figure 1). Gastric retention of gamma counts was calculated by the Department of Nuclear Medicine. The geometric mean was calculated by taking the square root of the number of counts recorded on the anterior and posterior images. Data was also corrected for isotope decay. Rapid gastric transit in this study was defined as <50% isotope retention at 1 hour for women, and <35% retention at 1 hour for men. These gender- specific cutoffs are based on a study by Tougas et al.,iii which analyzed gastric transit in individuals without GI disease, and demonstrated that these cutoffs represent the 90th percentile in terms of gastric transit speed.
35 (11%) patients met these criteria for rapid gastric transit. These charts were reviewed with a focus on factors that could be attributed to the development and course of their pathophysiology. This included previous surgical procedures, diabetes mellitus, and preceding gastroenteritis-like illnesses in the period preceding the development of postprandial symptoms. In addition, attention was paid to comorbid conditions, medical treatments, and outcomes. When data on the chart was insufficient, telephone interviews were also conducted.
RESULTS
Of the 35 patients who met diagnostic criteria for DS, the mean age was 55, (ranging from 24-80 years), and 31 (88.6%) were females. The mean gastric retention at 1 hour was 27.9% for the women (5-49, SD ±15.8%) and 23.75% (20-30, SD ±4.1%) for the men. that 10 patients (28.6%) had comorbid DM (8 type II, see Table 1), 5 (14.2%) had a previous Nissen fundoplication with presumed vagal damage, and 1 (2.9%) had another surgery which caused DS (a gastric bypass, see Table 2 for surgical causes of DS). Notably, 19 (54%) patients were determined to have “idiopathic” DS, defined as the lack of an identifiable etiology of DS (see Table 3). Of these idiopathic patients, 6 (32%) were able to recall and describe an event consistent with a viral or bacterial gastroenteritis which immediately preceded their DS symptoms.
Important co-existing conditions among this patient group included 14 (40%) who reported depression, and 8 (22.9%) who reported an anxiety disorder. Additionally, 17 (48.6%) were treated for concomitant small bowel bacterial overgrowth. Migraines were identified in 5 (14.3%), and IBS had previously been diagnosed in 5 (14.3%).
It was noted that 13 patients (37.1%) had been previously labeled with a diagnosis of gastroparesis prior to their referral to our motility center, and 6 (46%) of those had been treated with metoclopramide or domperidone with suboptimal outcomes.
The treatment approaches for these patients included dietary modifications in all, dicyclomine (Bentyl) in 26 patients (74.3%), and somatostatin (Octreotide) in 6 (17.1%).
DISCUSSION
Our cutoff for defining rapid gastric transit in men and women was based on number of studies, which have demonstrated a significant difference between gastric emptying times in women and men, with women having slower transit times.iii iv v The standardized scintigraphic technique, utilized by Tougas et al., had demonstrated this discrepancy, and provided cutoff values for the 90th percentile in both men and women. We adopted these 90th percentile values as our cutoffs for defining rapid gastric transit in women and men (<35% retention at 1 hr in men; <50% retention at 1 hr in women). However, further studies will be needed to assess whether these 90% percentile cutoffs offer the optimal diagnostic sensitivity and specificity.
Our report highlights a patient population with a strong representation of non-surgical etiologies of DS. Our experiences with these patients underscore the importance of recognizing DS in those without a prior gastric surgery. Indeed, 29 patients were referred to our center over the 3 years from which data was obtained, with DS without a surgical cause. It is important to note here that our medical center does not specialize in a common cause of DS in the current era, namely bariatric surgery. This fact serves as an explanation for why our patient group was predominantely non-surgical DS. In general, surgery may lead to DS by reducing the volume of the stomach (such as in partial gastrectomy), inhibiting receptive relaxation (e.g. fundoplication), or disrupting the neural mechanisms which retard gastric emptying (occurring occasionally with vagotomy).
As we examined the non-surgical DS patients, we found a large proportion were “idiopathic”- an unexpected finding. In fact, our study involves the most idiopathic DS patients of any published study to our knowledge. As we focused on this group, we realized that although there was no demonstrable cause of the condition in these patients, the reality of their gastrointestinal dysfunction could not be overlooked. Many had severe, sometimes disabling symptoms, which was the reason for their referral to our center. In addition, previous interventions had usually not been helpful. These observations, and the proportion of patients in our study with truly idiopathic DS, underscore the importance of the awareness of this “new kid on the block” when explaining why dumping syndrome can develop. Our expectation is that increased awareness will contribute to appropriate management and referrals for these patients, and treatments with anti-motility instead of promotility agents.
In the past, it is possible that many in the idiopathic subgroup were diagnosed with non-ulcer dyspepsia. Indeed, non-ulcer dyspepsia has been associated with both rapid gastric transit and delayed.iii, iv However, Rome III criteria for functional dyspepsia only encapsulate postprandial fullness, satiety, epigastric burning, and epigastric pain.iii Therefore, DS can be clinically distinguished from non-ulcer dyspepsia on the basis of more severe abdominal cramping, as well as systemic symptoms (sweating, weakness, palpitations, etc.). If there is uncertainty about the diagnosis, and symptoms are severe, DS should be considered. In these cases a scintigraphic study can establish the diagnosis. Treatments such as diet, dicyclomine, and octreotide, rely on an accurate diagnosis of DS.
An interesting finding in our study among our idiopathic group was that 32% of idiopathic patients had experienced a preceding gastroenteritis. Although further studies would be needed to establish the veracity of this relationship, as well as the mechanism, a possible explanation for this is that these illnesses induced injury to duodenal receptors, namely fat and osmotic receptors which control gastric emptying. Another possibility is vagal nerve damage resulting in decreased fundic relaxation and accomodation, facilitating rapid emptying.
Among etiologic factors of DS in our patient group, DM was the most common. As previously mentioned, we would expect that at medical centers specializing in bariatric surgery, surgical causes of DS would make a bigger contribution. Additionally, the population of El Paso, Texas (the location of our motility center) is predominantely Hispanic, which nationality has a well-established genetic susceptibility to DM2. With the increasing prevalence of DM2, it is likely that the number of Americans with GI motility disorders will increase as well. Thus, the importance of the DM2 DS population cannot be ignored. Although long-standing DM has classically been associated with gastroparesis, previous studies have demonstrated that DM of shorter duration is linked to rapid gastric emptying.vi, vii It is speculated that this RGE is due to early vagal damage, probably distal vagal damage, with gastroparesis evolving after more complete vagal loss. Although this temporal relationship is what is described in the literature, we observed DS in diabetes of long standing duration as well.
Another important conclusion to draw from our study is the utility of the scintigraphic GET. This test is key in distinguishing the diagnosis of gastroparesis from DS. Many of the patients in our study were previously labeled with gastroparesis, and indeed, some of the symptoms of gastroparesis are the same as in DS (e.g. nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and bloating). Some clinical differentiation may rest in the higher chance of nausea and vomiting in gastroparesis, and less severe abdominal pain than is present in DS. However, the past diagnosis of gastroparesis made in many of our patients emphasizes that gastroparesis symptoms can be almost indistinguishable from DS. Therefore gastric scintigraphy should be utilized when possible to definitively distinguish between gastroparesis and DS. Almost half our patients who had been previously labeled with gastroparesis had received prokinetics (domperidone or metoclopramide) before referral to our center. In these cases, we can assume that these treatments were not only ineffective, but also potentially worsened the symptoms. This finding underscores the usefulness of the GET.
The number of patients who identified themselves as having depression or anxiety in our study was high (49%). This finding is not surprising as it reinforces the well-known association of psychiatric disturbances with GI disease. For instance, CVS also has a high association with anxiety and depression.iii Similarly, IBS has a strong association with psychiatric illness; we have also found this to be a common comorbid condition in patients with DS. These associations between functional bowel disease and psychiatric illness emphasize the common pathogenic processes between mental health and the enteric nervous system. However, the lack of a specific diagnosis or poor response to misdirected therapies may have also contributed to the mental status of our frustrated and long suffering patients.
CRITIQUE
A potential limitation of our study was the criteria we used in the assessment of rapid gastric transit. In particular, because most studies on gastric transit testing have focused on delayed transit criteria, sufficient attention has not been paid to the early stages of the test. The early stages (first 30 minutes) are important, perhaps the most important, as this is the time frame during which early DS occurs. Thus, further studies outlining criteria for rapid emptying during earlier phases of the test might provide a more optimal method of diagnosing DS.
Our study design was not effective at identifying response to treatment in our patients. Studies addressing the effectiveness of anti-motility agents such as dicyclomine and somatostatin in DS patients would be helpful.
CONCLUSION
Many patients without a surgical history exhibit disabling DS symptoms in the setting of rapid gastric emptying. This included patients with DM2, those with a preceding gastroenteritis illness, and also those who had no predisposing factors for their symptoms. These findings emphasize a crucial role for scintigraphic GET in patients who have the symptoms of DS, even in the absence of a recent gastric surgery. This is essential to make the diagnosis of DS and effectively treat patients with this condition. Particularly in patients with DM and GI symptoms, a GET distinguished between gastroparesis and DS. With more precise diagnoses, this patient population will be better treated with focused therapies.
LIVER DISORDERS, #1
Evaluating Liver Disease in HIV-Infected Patients for the Primary Care Physician
Patients with HIV are living longer given the improvement in antiretroviral medications, and consequently liver disease has emerged as one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in this cohort. Primary care providers will have to be aware of the major etiologies of hepatic injury in this special patient population. This article presents a broad overview of many major infectious and non-infectious factors that every clinician should keep in mind when managing these complex patients.
INTRODUCTION
HIV continues to be a major worldwide epidemic. Globally, there are approximately 40 million This significant decrease in mortality is a direct result of the development of HAART in the mid 1990’s.2,3 Though HAART has successfully prolonged longevity, HIV patients are now more likely to suffer significant morbidity and mortality from other disorders such as liver disease and its associated complications.4,5 In fact, liver disease has emerged as one of the leading causes of death in the HIV positive population. For example, in a retrospective chart review in a 280 bed hospital in Jamaica Plain, MA, HIV deaths due to liver disease increased from 11.5% in 1991, to 13.9% in 1996, to 50% in 1998-1999 (P = 0.003), while the rate of opportunistic infections and bacterial pneumonia declined accordingly.6 Additionally, a French mortality people living with HIV, and in the United States there are more than 1.1 million Americans infected with HIV with an incidence of nearly 60,000 new cases per year.2 In the past, many HIV patients died from pathogens that were able to invade an immunocompromised host, but more recently there has been a dramatic decline in the incidence of these fatal opportunistic infections.
This significant decrease in mortality is a direct result of the development of HAART in the mid 1990’s.2,3 Though HAART has successfully prolonged longevity, HIV patients are now more likely to suffer significant morbidity and mortality from other disorders such as liver disease and its associated complications.4,5 In fact, liver disease has emerged as one of the leading causes of death in the HIV positive population. For example, in a retrospective chart review in a 280 bed hospital in Jamaica Plain, MA, HIV deaths due to liver disease increased from 11.5% in 1991, to 13.9% in 1996, to 50% in 1998-1999 (P = 0.003), while the rate of opportunistic infections and bacterial pneumonia declined accordingly.6 Additionally, a French mortality people living with HIV, and in the United States there are more than 1.1 million Americans infected with HIV with an incidence of nearly 60,000 new cases per year.2 In the past, many HIV patients died from pathogens that were able to invade an immunocompromised host, but more recently there has been a dramatic decline in the incidence of these fatal opportunistic infections.
Evaluating Liver Disease in HIV-Infected Patients for the Primary Care Physician ?study described increasing proportions of liver death over a five-year interval (13.4% in 2000 to 15.4% in 2005), with a simultaneous rise in hepatocellular carcinoma deaths from 15% to 25% (P=0.03).7
Indeed, the long-term consequences of chronic liver disease is significant since it leads to a variety of grave sequelae and a decreased quality of life.5 Early effects of liver disease manifest in a variety of ways, from asymptomatic to generalized symptoms such as fatigue, nausea, loss of appetite, or abdominal pain. HIV related liver injuries may spontaneously resolve, although some patients may decompensate and develop jaundice, fibrosis, or cirrhosis, which in turn may lead to serious conditions such as gastric or esophageal varices, ascites, hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatic encephalopathy, and ultimately death. In addition to the impact on personal health, liver disease in HIV infected patients significantly increases health care costs, largely due to protracted hospital admissions.8 Before the widespread use of HAART, hepatologists rarely had a direct role in the management of HIV patients. Now, however, several studies are highlighting the need to focus on liver disease in HIV-infected patients.2 Undoubtedly, primary care physicians too will have to play an important role in the co-management of non- AIDS related HIV conditions. The aim of this article is to discuss several major etiologies (infectious versus non-infectious) and recommendations for generalists to consider when evaluating liver disease in the HIV- infected patient (see Table 1).
Infectious Hepatitis C
Of the approximately 40 million people living with HIV worldwide, roughly five million are also co-infected with the Hepatitis C virus (HCV).1 Of the 1.1 million HIV patients in the United States, 25-30% are also infected with HCV.9,10 HIV and HCV co-infection is common given the similar routes of transmission.9,11 In fact, over 60% of patients who acquired HIV infection via intravenous drug use are also infected with Hepatitis C.10 Liver disease has become a major cause of mortality in HIV patients primarily co-infected with HCV. For instance, in the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design, HCV co- infected patients had an 85% increased risk of death.12 Furthermore, other cohort studies have shown that HCV related liver disease has emerged as one of the leading
causes of morbidity and mortality in co-infected persons partly due to a more rapid progression of liver disease in those with concurrent HIV infection.13 Patients with co-infection have an increased rate of progression to cirrhosis, decompensated liver disease, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death.14,15 It should be noted that although newly approved direct-acting antivirals (DAA) have the potential to cure patients infected with Hepatitis C, this may be more challenging in the HCV/HIV co-infected patient due to several barriers including high cost and adverse drug interactions between HAART and DAA.16
Hepatitis B
Similar to HCV, Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is also common among patients with HIV due to similar transmission routes.11 Of the 40 million people living with HIV globally, almost four million are chronically infected with Hepatitis B.1 In the United States, nearly 10% of the 1.1 million HIV patients also have HBV co-infection, with the rates of liver related morbidity and mortality higher in this group compared to patients infected with either virus alone.17 A retrospective study from an Iranian infectious disease center, which examined 124 HIV infected patients found HIV/HBV co-infected patients to have significantly higher serum AST and ALT concentrations, as well as higher rates of morbidity and mortality.18 Furthermore, it has been clearly established that HIV alters the natural history of both HBV and HCV by increasing viremia levels.9 Additionally, the histological course of HBV and HCV is exacerbated by HIV since it enhances the severity of liver fibrosis and hastens the risk of cirrhosis.19 Also worth mentioning is the fact that managing Hepatitis B in HIV co-infected patients is much more complicated due to the dual activity of several nucleoside analogues, the decreased response to interferons, and the more rapid development of lamivudine-resistant HBV.20
HIV
In addition to HCV and HBV, HIV itself may play a major role in liver injury. For instance, Brau et al. found that a higher HIV RNA level was linked to a more rapid progression of liver fibrosis.21 while Mehta et al. reported that detectable HIV RNA levels (>400 copies/mL) were connected to a 3.8 fold higher risk of necroinflammation of the liver.22 Furthermore, the Swiss HIV Cohort Study showed that HIV RNA levels > 100,000 copies/mL was associated with an elevated ALT, independent of HAART.23 This independent association between greater plasma HIV-RNA levels and faster liver fibrosis progression has also been observed by others.19 Additionally, there is now growing evidence that HIV can harm the liver through both direct and indirect mechanisms. Directly, hepatic Kupffer cells and endothelial cells may be infected with HIV, and hepatic stellate cell receptors such as CXCR4 may be activated by HIV, which induces fibrogenesis.24 Moreover, abnormalities in liver function tests may be produced exclusively by direct inflammation of hepatocytes caused by HIV itself. The main mechanism theorized involves apoptosis and mitochondrial dysfunction coupled with HIV proteins, which stimulate hepatic inflammation.25 Indirectly, HIV can also damage a patient’s intestinal mucosa and alter the gut wall permeability, resulting in microbial translocation of bacterial endotoxins such as lipopolysaccharide (LPS), which has been shown to contribute to liver disease injury and progression.HBV.26
Non-infectious HAART
While HIV itself may cause liver injury, its treatment may as well. Even though HAART has saved millions of lives and is one of the most successful breakthroughs in modern medicine,2 all antiretroviral medications carry the risk of hepatotoxicity. This hepatotoxicity may be associated with a single antiretroviral drug or with a cocktail of HIV medications, which are given in combination. These medication related injuries can range in severity from mild, transient elevations in liver function tests, to sudden and severe hepatic failure. Severe hepatic failure due to HAART was observed in approximately 10% of HIV patients in retrospective studies, with life threatening events appearing at a rate of 2.6 per 100 person years.8 The four primary pathways of HAART associated liver damage include mitochondrial toxicity, direct hepatocellular toxicity, hypersensitivity reactions, and immune reconstitution in the presence of HCV or HBV.1
NAFLD
Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), associated with the metabolic syndrome, is a term which comprises a spectrum of liver conditions that range from simple steatosis (fat alone) to steatohepatitis (NASH). These disorders are becoming increasingly common in HIV positive patients with and without chronic viral hepatitis. NASH is associated with advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis.27,28 Over the past decade it has been shown to be an early marker of cardiovascular disease as well, which is another emergent issue itself.29 The prevalence of NAFLD ranges between 14-31% in the general population,30 with approximately 6% affected by NASH.31 Unlike most other liver diseases, NAFLD remains a clinicopathologic diagnosis since there is no reliable biochemical, serologic, radiologic, or genetic marker of disease presence or severity. It is characterized by the presence of excessive fat in the hepatocytes of non-alcoholics.31 Non-invasive sonography, CT, and MRI may be effective at detecting steatosis, but only if greater than 33% of fat is present in the liver.34 The gold standard for diagnosis is liver biopsy,27 although this may be limited in many clinical care settings due to the lack of availability, the risk of complications (including pain, bleeding, and death), and the relatively high cost of the procedure.32,33 Nevertheless, NAFLD has become the most common etiology of chronic liver disease in HIV patients who do not have viral co-infection,35 as MRI and CT studies report a 37-42% rate of steatosis among HIV patients alone, and this percentage increases to 67% among those with HBV or HCV co-infection.36 Linking of steatosis to NAFLD involves an association with the metabolic syndrome, which involves visceral obesity, insulin resistance and diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia (especially hypertriglyceridemia), and hypertension.37,38 These metabolic abnormalities may accelerate liver fibrosis,38 and the rates of NAFLD in HIV patients will continue to rise as the degree of obesity and metabolic syndrome become more prevalent in the community.31
Overlapping Etiologies
While many individual etiologies of hepatic injury in HIV patients have been discussed so far, the underlying mechanism is most likely a more complicated, interactive, and multifactorial process, which is best summed up pictorially (Figure 1). As mentioned earlier, HIV itself or its treatment may cause liver damage. Therefore, since HIV RNA and HAART are opposing mechanisms of liver damage, HAART induced damage could be more noticeable in patients with well- suppressed viral loads, while HIV RNA generated hepatic injury might be more readily seen in patients with poorly controlled HIV viral loads.24 In addition, HAART related hepatotoxicity may be more likely to develop in patients with underlying HCV or HBV. For instance, studies indicate that HIV/HCV co-infected patients have higher degrees of liver fibrosis and an accelerated progression of liver disease,39,40 while HIV/ HBV co-infected patients on HAART are susceptible to clinically significant hepatotoxicity.17 Antiretroviral medications may also lead to the development of metabolic syndrome,31 with one mechanism seen in the protease inhibitor associated development of insulin resistance and dyslipidemia, both of which are risk factors for steatosis.41 Steatosis itself may cause liver damage, but it may also sensitize the liver making it more susceptible to inflammatory and immune mediated injuries.24 Both HAART and HBV/HCV co-infection may also affect the liver via immune mediated injury as well.1 Furthermore, alcohol and other hepatotoxins may exacerbate liver toxicity, and like HBV/HCV co- infection, this may directly cause mitochondrial injury in the liver and promote hepatic steatosis.1,6,30
Recommendations for the Primary Care Provider (See Table 2)
Based on experience from managing other chronic medical conditions, primary care providers should be highly capable of overseeing and coordinating a multidisciplinary approach to HIV care. In fact, a study involving 5,247 patients linked to 177 physicians (102 generalists and 75 infectious disease specialists) showed that PCPs with experience in HIV management were able to provide high-quality care to complex HIV patients.42 Indeed, when working together with a team of specialists, there are several things that internists may do to help co-manage liver disease in HIV patients. First, the PCP should obtain baseline liver function tests and periodically monitor for hepatotoxicity. While evaluation of the risk versus benefit for many medications continues to be a dilemma for regulatory agencies, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines hepatotoxicity as aminotransferase levels exceeding three times the upper limit of normal and/or when bilirubin levels are more than twice normal.1 Next, all HIV patients should be screened for viral Hepatitis A, B and C, and if non-immune, these patients should be vaccinated against both HAV and HBV since the increased severity of hepatitis in patients with preexisting liver disease is significant.8,11 While there is currently no vaccine for the Hepatitis C virus, HIV patients should be educated on transmission patterns and counseled on safe sex and the risk of needle sharing.11 Along similar lines, excessive alcohol intake has been observed in one-third of HIV-infected individuals30 and clinicians should advise these patients to avoid consumption and limit the exposure of other 11 hepatotoxins such as acetaminophen. In addition, primary care providers should always encourage a healthy diet and exercise, since lifestyle may play a significant role in the development of liver disease among HIV patients. Studies have not only shown a link between BMI, high cholesterol levels, and diabetes in liver disease progression,26 but they have also highlighted the fact that optimum nutrition can improve the quality of life for persons living with HIV/AIDS, slow the progression of HIV to AIDS, and improve the tolerance to antiretroviral therapy.42 Lastly, health care providers must reinforce medication adherence, as there is a huge potential for adverse outcomes given the possibility of drug resistance, treatment failure, and progression of disease if medications are utilized inappropriately.43
CONCLUSION
As patients with HIV are living longer and experiencing increasing morbidity and mortality from liver disease, primary care providers will have to be aware of the major etiologies of hepatic injury in this special patient population. This article presented a broad overview of many major infectious and non-infectious factors that every clinician should keep in mind when managing these complex patients. Internists will continue to play an important role in disease management of these patients in the future, and since primary care providers often develop a long lasting relationship and rapport with their patients, this provides an ideal setting for generalists to screen HIV patients for co-infections, vaccinate the non-immune, encourage healthy lifestyles and emphasize medication adherence at every visit. This reinforcement at both the primary care and specialty levels will ensure that patients do not receive fragmented care or conflicting information, but rather obtain coordinated care from health care providers working together to provide the best care for their patients.
Douglas G. Adler
John F. Pohl
Laura Knotts
Carole Havrila
Mustafa Abdul-Hussein
Janice Freeman
Carlos Zapata
Donald O. Castell
Yi Jia
Omar Sosa
Richard W. McCallum
Carol Rees Parrish
John K. DiBaise
Patrick Berg
Mark Hall
Irene Sarosiek
Gaurav Singhvi
George Tan