Relationship between gastric emptying of solids and gall bladder emptying in normal subjects

Very little is known about the normal temporal and quantitative relationships between gastric emptying and gall bladder emptying. Using a non-invasive double isotope technique these relationships were investigated in 22 normal healthy adults. 99Tcm EHIDA was used as the biliary tracer and 113Inm lab...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inGut Vol. 26; no. 4; pp. 342 - 351
Main Authors Baxter, J N, Grime, J S, Critchley, M, Shields, R
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Society of Gastroenterology 01.04.1985
BMJ
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Very little is known about the normal temporal and quantitative relationships between gastric emptying and gall bladder emptying. Using a non-invasive double isotope technique these relationships were investigated in 22 normal healthy adults. 99Tcm EHIDA was used as the biliary tracer and 113Inm labelled bran as the gastric content tracer. Gastric emptying was monoexponential with a t1/2 of 45 +/- 3 minutes (mean +/- SEM). In 15 subjects the gall bladder emptied in relation to eating according to a double exponential function. In these subjects 15.0 +/- 1.6% of gall bladder contents emptied before gastric emptying began. They could be further divided into two clear cut types (p less than 0.001), according to the ejection fraction at 10 minutes and the t1/2 of the first exponential. Emptying of the gall bladder was faster and more of its contents were ejected in subjects with a type I response (n = 9) than in subjects with a type II response (n = 6). In the remaining seven subjects the gall bladder began to empty spontaneously, unrelated to eating. These observations suggest that gall bladder emptying: (a) may have a cephalic phase, (b) can be expressed as a double exponential function, (c) may occur unrelated to eating, (d) which occurs only in relation to eating would appear to be either fast (type I) or slow (type II).
Bibliography:ark:/67375/NVC-T2KV4WKS-5
PMID:3979907
local:gutjnl;26/4/342
istex:5B5619F16080A5129216A4BB2DB0361D98063E7A
href:gutjnl-26-342.pdf
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0017-5749
1468-3288
1458-3288
DOI:10.1136/gut.26.4.342