Cargando…

High‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles

BACKGROUND: Gastric bio‐electrical slow waves are, in part, responsible for coordinating motility. Spatial dynamics about the recovery phase of slow wave recordings have not been thoroughly investigated due to the lack of suitable experimental techniques. METHODS: A high‐resolution multi‐channel suc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Han, Henry, Cheng, Leo K., Paskaranandavadivel, Niranchan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10078408/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35726361
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14422
_version_ 1785020511642714112
author Han, Henry
Cheng, Leo K.
Paskaranandavadivel, Niranchan
author_facet Han, Henry
Cheng, Leo K.
Paskaranandavadivel, Niranchan
author_sort Han, Henry
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Gastric bio‐electrical slow waves are, in part, responsible for coordinating motility. Spatial dynamics about the recovery phase of slow wave recordings have not been thoroughly investigated due to the lack of suitable experimental techniques. METHODS: A high‐resolution multi‐channel suction electrode array was developed and applied in pigs to acquire monophasic gastric slow waves. Signal characteristics were verified against biphasic slow waves recorded by conventional surface contact electrode arrays. Monophasic slow wave events were categorized into two groups based on their morphological characteristics, after which their amplitudes, activation to recovery intervals, and gradients were quantified and compared. Coverage of activation and recovery maps for both electrode types were calculated and compared. KEY RESULTS: Monophasic slow waves had a more pronounced recovery phase with a higher gradient than biphasic slow waves (0.5 ± 0.1 vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 mV·s(−1)). Between the 2 groups of monophasic slow waves, there was a significant difference in amplitude (1.8 ± 0.5 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2 mV), activation time gradient (0.8 ± 0.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 mV·s(−1)), and recovery time gradient (0.5 ± 0.1 vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 mV·s(−1)). For the suction and conventional contact electrode arrays, the recovery maps had reduced coverage compared to the activation maps (4 ± 6% and 43 ± 11%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: A novel high‐resolution multi‐channel suction electrode array was developed and applied in vivo to record monophasic gastric slow waves. Slow wave recovery phase analysis could be performed more efficiently on monophasic signals compared with biphasic signals, due to the more identifiable recovery phases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10078408
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100784082023-04-07 High‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles Han, Henry Cheng, Leo K. Paskaranandavadivel, Niranchan Neurogastroenterol Motil Original Articles BACKGROUND: Gastric bio‐electrical slow waves are, in part, responsible for coordinating motility. Spatial dynamics about the recovery phase of slow wave recordings have not been thoroughly investigated due to the lack of suitable experimental techniques. METHODS: A high‐resolution multi‐channel suction electrode array was developed and applied in pigs to acquire monophasic gastric slow waves. Signal characteristics were verified against biphasic slow waves recorded by conventional surface contact electrode arrays. Monophasic slow wave events were categorized into two groups based on their morphological characteristics, after which their amplitudes, activation to recovery intervals, and gradients were quantified and compared. Coverage of activation and recovery maps for both electrode types were calculated and compared. KEY RESULTS: Monophasic slow waves had a more pronounced recovery phase with a higher gradient than biphasic slow waves (0.5 ± 0.1 vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 mV·s(−1)). Between the 2 groups of monophasic slow waves, there was a significant difference in amplitude (1.8 ± 0.5 vs. 1.1 ± 0.2 mV), activation time gradient (0.8 ± 0.2 vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 mV·s(−1)), and recovery time gradient (0.5 ± 0.1 vs. 0.3 ± 0.1 mV·s(−1)). For the suction and conventional contact electrode arrays, the recovery maps had reduced coverage compared to the activation maps (4 ± 6% and 43 ± 11%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: A novel high‐resolution multi‐channel suction electrode array was developed and applied in vivo to record monophasic gastric slow waves. Slow wave recovery phase analysis could be performed more efficiently on monophasic signals compared with biphasic signals, due to the more identifiable recovery phases. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-06-20 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10078408/ /pubmed/35726361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14422 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Neurogastroenterology & Motility published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Han, Henry
Cheng, Leo K.
Paskaranandavadivel, Niranchan
High‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles
title High‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles
title_full High‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles
title_fullStr High‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles
title_full_unstemmed High‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles
title_short High‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles
title_sort high‐resolution in vivo monophasic gastric slow waves to quantify activation and recovery profiles
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10078408/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35726361
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14422
work_keys_str_mv AT hanhenry highresolutioninvivomonophasicgastricslowwavestoquantifyactivationandrecoveryprofiles
AT chengleok highresolutioninvivomonophasicgastricslowwavestoquantifyactivationandrecoveryprofiles
AT paskaranandavadivelniranchan highresolutioninvivomonophasicgastricslowwavestoquantifyactivationandrecoveryprofiles