Psychosomatic Medicine Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Published online before print June 7, 2007, 10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180600a4a
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Oudenhove, L.
Right arrow Articles by Tack, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Van Oudenhove, L.
Right arrow Articles by Tack, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Gastrointestinal
Right arrow Anxiety
Psychosomatic Medicine 69:455-463 (2007)
© 2007 American Psychosomatic Society

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Relationship Between Anxiety and Gastric Sensorimotor Function in Functional Dyspepsia

Lukas Van Oudenhove, MD, Joris Vandenberghe, MD, Brecht Geeraerts, MSc, Rita Vos, MSc, Philippe Persoons, MD, Koen Demyttenaere, MD, PhD, Benjamin Fischler, MD, PhD and Jan Tack, MD, PhD

From the Department of Pathophysiology (L.V.O., B.G., R.V., J.T.), Gastroenterology Section; Department of Neurosciences (L.V.O., P.P., K.D., B.F.), Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, Belgium.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Lukas Van Oudenhove, Secretary of Liaison Psychiatry, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Herestraat 49, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail: Lukas.VanOudenhove{at}med.kuleuven.be


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 NOTES
 REFERENCES
 
Objective: To investigate the relationship between anxiety and gastric sensorimotor function in patients with (hypersensitive) functional dyspepsia (FD). Comorbidity between FD and anxiety disorders is high. In FD, epigastric pain is associated with gastric hypersensitivity and neuroticism, a personality trait related to anxiety. Experimentally induced anxiety in healthy volunteers is associated with changes in sensorimotor function of the proximal stomach.

Methods: A total of 139 patients with FD (n = 102 women) underwent a barostat investigation to determine gastric compliance, meal accommodation, and thresholds for discomfort and pain. Anxiety was measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) scale (anxiety as a stable personality trait) and the STAI-State scale (momentary anxiety). The anxiety subscale of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A) was filled out to detect comorbid anxiety disorders.

Results: Hyper- and normosensitive patients had similar anxiety scores, but gastric compliance was significantly lower in hypersensitive patients (11.4 versus 32.8 ml/mm Hg; p < .001). In the whole patient group, no significant correlations between STAI scores and gastric sensorimotor function were found. In hypersensitive patients (n = 53, 43 women), state anxiety was negatively correlated with discomfort threshold ({rho} = –.49; p = .001), pain threshold ({rho} = –.48; p = .02), and gastric compliance ({rho} = –.46; p = .002). These results were confirmed by multiple linear and logistic regression analyses.

Conclusion: In hypersensitive patients with FD, state anxiety is significantly and negatively correlated with discomfort threshold, pain threshold, and compliance. These results strengthen the hypothesis that anxiety is important in FD, especially in hypersensitive patients.

Key Words: functional dyspepsia • hypersensitivity • barostat • anxiety • central nervous system • brain-gut axis

Abbreviations: FD = functional dyspepsia; STAI = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; HADS-A = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale; FGID = functional gastrointestinal disorders; IBS = irritable bowel syndrome; CNS = central nervous system; MDP = minimal distending pressure; WMW test = Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney test; OR = odds ratio; ANS = autonomic nervous system; EMS = emotional motor system; PAG = periaqueductal grey; LC = locus coeruleus; HPA-axis = hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis; ASI = anxiety sensitivity index; VSI = visceral sensitivity index.


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 NOTES
 REFERENCES
 
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a clinical syndrome defined by chronic or recurrent upper abdominal symptoms without identifiable cause by conventional diagnostic means (1). The symptom complex is often related to feeding and includes symptoms of epigastric pain, bloating, early satiety, fullness, epigastric burning, belching, nausea, and vomiting (1). Recent studies indicated that FD is a heterogeneous disorder, in which different gastric pathophysiological mechanisms are associated with specific symptom patterns (2). Dyspeptic symptoms have been attributed to abnormalities of gastric motility, such as delayed gastric emptying or impaired accommodation (3,4), or to visceral hypersensitivity, quantified as abnormal sensitivity to gastric balloon distension (5,6).

Psychosocial stressors, whether acute or more sustained, frequently precede onset and exacerbations of functional gastrointestinal disorder (FGID) symptoms and influence treatment outcome (7–9). Furthermore, comorbidity between FGID and psychiatric disorders, especially anxiety disorders, is high (7–10). However, it is unclear if psychosocial factors mainly determine healthcare seeking (8) or have a more direct influence on gastrointestinal (GI) sensorimotor function or symptom perception in FGID. Recent epidemiological and neurobiological studies have provided increasing evidence for the second hypothesis. Recent population-based studies found a higher prevalence of psychosocial abnormalities and psychiatric disorders in patients with FGID compared with that in the control group, even for patients not seeking treatment (11–13). Second, central nervous system (CNS) structures, which process GI sensory information or regulate autonomic output to the viscera, largely overlap with regions involved in emotional (dys)regulation (7,9,10,14–16).

Recent basic and clinical evidence has been supportive of an association between psychopathology and hypersensitivity to visceral distension in FGID, although the exact nature of the association remains unclear (9,10,17). In FD specifically, analyses of the relationship between symptom pattern, gastric sensorimotor function, and psychosocial factors have shown that hypersensitivity to gastric distension is associated with psychopathology (17). Factor analysis of dyspepsia symptoms identified four factors. The factor characterized by epigastric pain and burning was significantly associated with gastric hypersensitivity and several psychosocial dimensions, including the personality trait of neuroticism as measured by the Neuroticism Extraversion Openness-Five Factor Inventory (17), which is closely related to (trait) anxiety (18,19).

Finally, experimentally induced anxiety is associated with decreased gastric compliance and accommodation to a meal and with increased epigastric symptom scores during a standard nutrient challenge in healthy volunteers (20).

To our knowledge, the relationship between anxiety and gastric sensorimotor function in FD has not been studied in detail. The aim of the present study was to analyze the relationship between state and trait anxiety and gastric sensorimotor function in FD. Furthermore, given previous findings (17), we specifically compared patients with hypersensitivity and normal sensitivity to gastric distension in terms of gastric sensorimotor function, anxiety levels, and the relationship between both. We hypothesized that hypersensitivity to gastric distension would be associated with higher anxiety levels and that anxiety levels would be more strongly related to gastric sensorimotor function in hyper- compared with normosensitive patients.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 NOTES
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Sample
Consecutive Dutch-speaking patients newly diagnosed with FD were recruited between January 2002 and August 2005. The patient sample of the present study did not overlap with the study populations from previous studies by our group (3,6,17). Patients did not participate in other studies at the same time and did not participate repeatedly in this study. All patients presented to the motility outpatient clinic of the Gastroenterology Department at the University Hospital Gasthuisberg (a tertiary referral center) because of dyspeptic symptoms. All patients provided history and submitted to clinical examination, upper GI endoscopy, routine biochemistry panels, and abdominal ultrasound. Study criteria included the presence of dyspeptic symptoms for at least 12 weeks during the last 12 months and the absence of organic, systemic, or metabolic disease. All patients fulfilled the Rome II criteria for FD (1). In addition, dyspeptic symptoms had to be present at least 3 days per week, with ≥2 symptoms scored as relevant or severe on a symptom questionnaire. Exclusion criteria were the presence of esophagitis, gastric atrophy, erosive gastroduodenal lesions on endoscopy, heartburn as a predominant symptom, a history of peptic ulcer, major abdominal surgery, and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, steroids, or drugs affecting gastric acid secretion.

All drugs potentially affecting gastric function (including antidepressants) were discontinued at least 1 week before the barostat investigation. Informed consent was obtained from each participant. The Ethics Committee of the University Hospital approved the protocol before the start of the study. Patients were not paid for their participation in the study.

Questionnaires
On the day of the barostat investigation, patients filled out a set of validated self-report questionnaires that assess various psychosocial factors and psychiatric disorders, including the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-Dutch version (21–23) and the Dutch version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Anxiety subscale (HADS-A) (24,25). The State scale of the STAI was filled out twice, immediately before and after the barostat investigation. The mean value of these two scores was used as a measure for anxiety during the investigation for each patient; we will refer to this mean score as "STAI-State score." Prebarostat state anxiety levels were significantly higher compared with postbarostat levels. However, when the pre- or postbarostat STAI-State score instead of the mean score was used in the analyses below, similar results were obtained (data not shown).

Barostat Investigation
Thresholds for discomfort and pain (sensitivity to distension) and meal accommodation were studied using a gastric barostat. After an overnight fast of at least 12 hours, a double-lumen polyvinyl tube (Salem sump tube 14 Ch., Sherwood Medical, Petit Rechain, Belgium) with an adherent plastic bag (1200 ml capacity; 17 cm maximal diameter) finely folded was introduced through the patient's mouth and secured with adhesive tape to the chin. The position of the bag in the gastric fundus was checked fluoroscopically. The polyvinyl tube was then connected to a programmable barostat device (Synectics Visceral Stimulator, Stockholm, Sweden). To unfold the bag, it was inflated with a fixed volume of 300 ml of air for 2 minutes with the patient in a recumbent position; again, the bag was deflated completely. The patient was then positioned in a comfortable sitting position with the knees bent (80°) and the trunk upright in a specifically designed bed. After a 30-minute adaptation period, minimal distending pressure (MDP) was determined by increasing intrabag pressure by 1 mm Hg every 3 minutes. The first pressure level at which the volume exceeded 30 ml equilibrated the intra-abdominal pressure (MDP). Subsequently, isobaric distensions were performed in stepwise increments of 2 mm Hg starting from MDP, each lasting 2 minutes, while the corresponding intragastric volume was recorded. The patient was instructed to score his or her perception of upper abdominal sensations at the end of every distending step using a graphic rating scale with verbal descriptors on a scale graded 0 to 6. The endpoint of each sequence of distensions was established at an intrabag volume of 1000 ml or when the patients reported discomfort or pain (score of 5 or 6). After a 30-minute adaptation period with the bag completely deflated, the pressure level was set at MDP +2 mm Hg during at least 90 minutes. After 30 minutes, a liquid meal (200 ml, 300 kcal, 13% proteins, 48% carbohydrates, 39% lipids; Nutridrink, Nutricia, Bornem, Belgium) was administered. Gastric tone measurement continued for 60 minutes after the meal.

Data Analysis
For each 2-minute distending period, the intragastric volume was calculated by averaging the recording. Discomfort threshold was defined as the first level of pressure and the corresponding volume that provoked a score of ≥5. Pain threshold was defined as the first level of pressure and the corresponding volume that evoked a score of 6, but this was only reached in 57% of the patients (n = 79) because of intolerable discomfort at a score of 5. When we classified this intolerable discomfort as pain, the results were similar to the results on discomfort thresholds presented below (data not shown). Pressure thresholds were expressed relative to MDP, because this has been reported to be the most reliable measure (26). Hypersensitivity to gastric distension was defined as a discomfort threshold of ≤8 mm Hg, based on previous studies (6). Pressure-volume curves were obtained from stepwise distension. The slope of this curve (obtained by linear regression) was used to quantify gastric compliance, as this was previously shown to provide the best fit (26). Gastric tone before and after administration of the meal was measured by calculation of the mean balloon volume for consecutive 5-minute intervals. Meal-induced gastric relaxation (gastric accommodation) was quantified as the difference between the average volumes during 30 minutes before and 60 minutes after administration of the meal.

Statistical Analysis
SAS 9.1 and SAS Enterprise Guide 3 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC) were used.

All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation when normally distributed and as median (interquartile range) when not normally distributed. Significance level was set at 5%. If state and/or trait anxiety score was missing in a patient, this patient was excluded from all analyses in which the missing variable(s) was (were) used.

The normality of the distribution of all variables was checked using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Depending on the distribution of the dependent variable, hyper- and normosensitive subgroups were compared by two-tailed, two-independent-sample Student's t test or by nonparametric Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney (WMW) test. To investigate the association between the categorical variables, Pearson {chi}2 statistics were used.

In the correlation analyses, Spearman's {rho} was used because most variables were not normally distributed.

Using Proc GLM in SAS, multiple linear regression models were built with discomfort threshold, pain threshold, compliance, or accommodation as the dependent variable. All models were adjusted for age and gender. Sensitivity status, STAI-State score, STAI-Trait score, and sensitivity by STAI-State interaction terms were entered into the models as independent variables. Gender and sensitivity were used as dummy variables (gender: male = 1, female = 0; sensitivity: normosensitive = 1, hypersensitive = 0). When discomfort threshold or pain threshold was the dependent variable, sensitivity and its interaction with STAI-State score was not entered into the model, as sensitivity itself is defined based on the dependent variable discomfort threshold. In these cases, separate correlational and regression analyses were done in the normo- and hypersensitive subgroup to assess a putative differential effect of anxiety on sensory thresholds in both subgroups. When one of the assumptions underlying linear regression analysis was not met, the appropriate transformations were done.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 NOTES
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Characteristics
A total of 178 patients with FD were asked to participate after they were diagnosed with FD at the GI motility outpatient clinic. There were no refusals to participate at the clinic visit. However, 29 patients canceled their appointment after this visit or did not show up for their appointment, allowing 149 barostat investigations to be performed. Unfortunately, we were not able to obtain anxiety scores from the patients who canceled their appointment or did not show up, as the questionnaires had to be filled out on the day of the investigation. In 10 patients, the procedure had to be stopped prematurely as patients did not tolerate either the tube insertion or had severe discomfort once the tube was in place. A total of 139 patients completed the study (Figure 1); 102 (73%) were women; the mean age was 39.5 ± 12.2 years; 53 (38%, 43 women) patients were hypersensitive to gastric distension.


Figure 110
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Patient participation flowchart. FD = functional dyspepsia; GI = gastrointestinal.

 

The STAI-State scale, STAI-Trait scale, and HADS-A were filled out correctly by 111 (80%) patients, 127 (92%) patients, and 129 (93%) patients, respectively. The mean STAI-State score was 42.7 ± 8.7; the median STAI-Trait score was 41.8 (35.5–49); and the median HADS-A score was 5 (3–9). A total of 43 (33%) patients had an HADS-A score of ≥8, which is the optimal cut-off for "possible presence of clinically significant anxiety" (24,27).

All 139 patients underwent the barostat investigation. Distensions were stopped at a gastric sensation score of 5 (discomfort) or 6 (pain). In five (4%) patients, distensions had to be stopped because of intolerance before a score of 5 was reached. A total of 79 (57%) patients were able to tolerate distensions until a score of 6 was reached (Figure 1). The median discomfort threshold was 10 (8–12) mm Hg above MDP and the median pain threshold was 12 (8–14) mm Hg above MDP. The median compliance was 21.4 (9.4–38) ml/mm Hg and the median accommodation was 108.7 (–2.4–219.9) ml. Gastric compliance was significantly lower in women (median 32.5 versus 47.3 ml/mm Hg; WMW test, z = 4.2; p < .0001). All the other pathophysiological and psychological variables did not differ significantly between men and women.

Hypersensitive Versus Normosensitive Patients
The comparison between hypersensitive and normosensitive patients is summarized in Table 1. There was no significant difference in age, STAI-State score, STAI-Trait score, or HADS-A score between the two groups. A total of 18 (39%) patients in the hypersensitive subgroup had an HADS-A score of ≥8, which was slightly higher than in the whole patient sample (33%). There was a trend toward an association between hypersensitivity and female gender (Pearson {chi}2 test, df = 1; {chi}2 = 2.63; p = .10). Gastric compliance was significantly lower in the hypersensitive subgroup (median 8.5 versus 33.8 ml/mm Hg; WMW test, z = –7.5; p < .0001), whereas gastric accommodation did not differ significantly between both groups (median 109.6 versus 106.6 ml; WMW test, z = –0.31; p = .76).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 1. Comparison Between Hyper- and Normosensitive Patients

 

Univariate Correlations and Multiple Linear Regression in the Whole Patient Group
In univariate correlation analysis, we correlated STAI-State score and STAI-Trait score on one hand with discomfort threshold, pain threshold, compliance, and accommodation on the other hand. No significant correlations were found.


Accommodation
A multiple linear regression model (adjusted for age and gender) with gastric accommodation as the dependent variable and sensitivity status, STAI-State score, STAI-Trait score, and a sensitivity by STAI-State interaction term as independent variables, was not found to be significant.

Compliance
The results of a similar model with gastric compliance as the dependent variable are summarized in Table 2.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 2. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Predicting Compliance (Whole Patient Group, n = 104)

 

The significant sensitivity by STAI-State interaction term indicates a significant negative relationship between STAI-State score and gastric compliance in hypersensitive but not in normosensitive patients.

Discomfort and Pain Threshold
In the regression analyses with discomfort threshold and pain threshold as dependent variable, sensitivity and its interaction term with STAI-State score were not entered into the model for reasons described in Materials and Methods. No significant model was obtained.

Separate correlational and regression analyses were done in the normo- and hypersensitive subgroup to assess a putative differential effect of anxiety on sensory thresholds according to sensitivity status.

Univariate Correlations and Multiple Linear Regression in Hypersensitive Patients
When univariate correlation analyses were performed in the hypersensitive subgroup only, significant negative correlations were found between STAI-State score and discomfort threshold ({rho} = –0.49; p = .001), pain threshold ({rho} = –0.48; p = .02), and compliance ({rho} = –0.46; p = .002).


Discomfort Threshold
Thirty-eight patients could be included in this analysis, i.e., they did not have any missing values for one of the variables. Because the dependent variable discomfort threshold has only four response levels in the hypersensitive subgroup (2, 4, 6, and 8 mm Hg), a cumulative logit logistic regression model for ordinal responses was used, adjusted for age and gender, with STAI-State score and STAI-Trait score as independent variables.

The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 3, showing that higher STAI-State score was significantly associated with lower discomfort threshold.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 3. Multiple Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Discomfort Threshold (Hypersensitive Patient Group, n = 38)

 

Pain Threshold
The results of the linear regression analysis with pain threshold as the dependent variable are summarized in Table 4. In summary, a significant negative relationship between state anxiety levels and pain thresholds was found. However, the power of this analysis was limited by the small number of observations available (n = 23, missing values for pain thresholds and, to a far lesser extent, anxiety measures).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 4. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Predicting Pain Threshold (Hypersensitive Patient Group, n = 23)

 

Compliance
Forty-one patients could be included in this analysis. To confirm the result of the linear regression on compliance in the whole patient sample, the analysis was repeated in the hypersensitive subgroup (without the interaction term). The results are shown in Table 5, confirming a negative relationship between state anxiety levels and gastric compliance in the hypersensitive subgroup.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 5. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Predicting Compliance (Hypersensitive Patient Group, n = 41)

 

Scatter plots with regression line highlighting the different relationship between state anxiety and compliance in the whole patient group and the normo- and hypersensitive subgroups are shown in Figures 2, 3, and 4.


Figure 210
View larger version (10K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 2. Scatter plot of STAI-State score versus SQRT compliance (whole patient group). STAI-State = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; SQRT = square root.

 


Figure 310
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 3. Scatter plot of STAI-State score versus SQRT compliance (normosensitive patients). STAI-State = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; SQRT = square root.

 


Figure 410
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 4. Scatter plot of STAI-State score versus SQRT compliance (hypersensitive patients). STAI-State = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory; SQRT = square root.

 

   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
NOTES
 REFERENCES
 
Anxiety Scores
Using the HADS-A, we found that 33% of patients presented with "possibly clinically relevant anxiety." This finding is in line with previous reports on comorbidity of anxiety and FD, although higher percentages have been reported, especially in tertiary care samples (28,29).

STAI-State and STAI-Trait scores were significantly increased when compared with the norms for the general Dutch population (22) (Table 6). However, it should be mentioned that these norms apply to nonstressful circumstances, whereas the patients in the present study filled out the STAI-State scale immediately before and after a barostat investigation. Furthermore, STAI-Trait scores were not significantly different from a sample of Dutch medical patients, and both STAI-State and STAI-Trait scores were significantly lower compared with a sample of Dutch psychiatric outpatients (22) (Table 6). Finally, the STAI scores in our patient sample were comparable with those found for a nonconsulting subgroup of dyspeptic subjects in a study from Hong Kong, but lower than in the consulting subgroup of patients with FD in the same study (12) (Table 6). Taken together, the anxiety scores in the present study are lower than expected in a tertiary care population based on previous literature.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		TABLE 6. Comparison of Anxiety Scores Between the Present Study, Dutch Norms, and a Previously Published Study in FD

 

Relationship Between Anxiety and Gastric Sensorimotor Function
Previous basic and clinical studies suggest a potential relationship between anxiety and hypersensitivity to gastric distension. In the present study, STAI-State, STAI-Trait scores, and HADS-A scores did not differ significantly among patients with hypersensitive and normosensitive FD. However, multiple linear regression indicated a different relationship between anxiety and gastric sensorimotor function in hypersensitive compared with normosensitive patients. In other words, the effect of anxiety on gastric sensorimotor function is moderated by gastric sensitivity status. A separate analysis within the subgroup of patients with hypersensitive FD demonstrated a significant negative relationship between STAI-State score, on the one hand, and discomfort threshold, pain threshold, and compliance, on the other hand. Thus, higher levels of state anxiety predict lower discomfort and pain thresholds and lower compliance in this group. These results indicate that higher levels of anxiety are not associated with hypersensitivity per se, but that state anxiety might be importantly related to gastric sensorimotor function within the hypersensitive subgroup.

Study Limitations
We should address some important limitations to this study. First, this is a cross-sectional study, which does not allow us to draw conclusions on causality of observed associations.

Second, the patient population consists of patients with FD, who were consecutively recruited from a tertiary care center, thereby limiting the generalizability of the results toward other populations of patients with FD. Moreover, as patients were recruited consecutively, they reflect the average tertiary care patients with FD and were therefore heterogeneous in terms of onset and course of illness, psychiatric comorbidity, previous medication use, etc. (2).

Third, the measurement of anxiety is based on self-report measures only, without inclusion of objective measures (e.g., heart rate). On the other hand, the questionnaires we used have been extensively investigated and shown to be reliable and valid (22,27).

Fourth, only measures of "general" anxiety were used, but not measures of somatic symptom-"specific" anxiety, which might be more closely related to visceral sensitivity.

Putative Mechanisms Underlying the Relationship Between Anxiety and Gastric Sensorimotor Function
To our knowledge, this is the first study that assesses the link between self-reported anxiety levels and gastric sensorimotor function in patients with FD. As no association was found in the whole patient group, we may speculate that anxiety and gastric sensorimotor function in FD are linked by a common (genetic) disposition rather than directly related. There is, for example, growing evidence for a role of serotonin transporter polymorphisms in both GI function and anxiety regulation, in health as well as disease (FGID, anxiety disorders) (30,31).

However, the significant negative relationship between STAI-State scores, on the one hand, and gastric sensitivity (discomfort and pain thresholds) and motor function (compliance), on the other hand, in the hypersensitive subgroup, might provide evidence for the hypothesis that anxiety is playing a more direct role in at least subgroups of F(GI)D patients (9,10). Putative mechanisms underlying this relationship are described below. It remains, however, unclear why an association between anxiety levels and gastric sensorimotor function was found in the hypersensitive subgroup only. It can be speculated that differences in functioning of the psychobiological systems account for the differential relationship between anxiety and gastric sensorimotor function in hypersensitive compared with normosensitive patients.

The correlation between anxiety levels and gastric thresholds for discomfort and pain could be explained by several forms of psychological bias. Hyperarousal (preattentive hyperresponsiveness) and hypervigilance (attentive hyperresponsiveness) toward potentially threatening stimuli (including interoceptive stimuli) is an important feature of anxiety (32). This might be associated with a tendency to report symptoms at lower levels of stimulation. Moreover, hyperarousal, hypervigilance, and/or GI-specific anxiety are important features of (the hypersensitive subgroup of) patients with FGID (9,33), although this was not specifically addressed in this study. It is important to note that these mechanisms should not be seen as being purely psychological, as we are starting to unravel their neurobiological correlates (9,34).

However, it seems unlikely that the relationship between anxiety levels and gastric compliance can be explained in psychological terms only. There are several ways by which emotional feelings (mental states, including acute anxiety) and underlying emotional states (central and peripheral neurobiological responses underlying these mental states) can influence visceral functions, including gastric sensory and motor function (9,16,35). Autonomic nervous system (ANS) and neuroendocrine responses, mainly generated by the "emotional motor system" (EMS), as described by Mayer and associates (9), are part of anxiety states (36–38). The paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus, the periaqueductal grey (PAG) and the amygdale, are the key structures in this system (7,9). The EMS is part of a larger CNS network involved in anxiety regulation (36–39), receiving input from cortical structures involved in both emotion generation/regulation and visceral motor function, including the anterior cingulate gyrus, insula, and prefrontal cortex (7,9,36,38,39). EMS structures have connections with brain stem nuclei that control arousal (for example, from the amygdala to the noradrenergic locus coeruleus (LC)) and autonomic nuclei including the motor nucleus of the vagus nerve (7,9,10). The LC is crucially involved in the anxiety state (through ascending noradrenergic projections) and in the regulation of GI responses (through connections to ANS nuclei) (9,10,36). Experimentally induced anxiety and anxiety disorders are associated with altered autonomic output, especially low parasympathetic (vagal) tone (15,32,40–43). In FD, low efferent vagal tone has been observed in several studies and has been proposed as the mediating mechanism between psychosocial factors and gastric pathophysiology (44–47). Simultaneous with ANS responses, the neuroendocrine response (activation of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis through the EMS—production of corticotropin-releasing factor and cortisol), which is associated with the acute anxiety state, might also alter gastric sensorimotor function (9,10,36,48). These efferent signals, which are known to be part of the anxiety state, might explain the negative correlation between the subjective anxiety and gastric compliance in patients with hypersensitive FD in our study. Testing this hypothesis, however, falls beyond the scope of this study and would require additional studies involving measurement of autonomic tone or HPA axis activity.

Furthermore, there is growing evidence that anxiety may influence the processing of visceral afferent information and the generation of endogenous antinociceptive responses (7,9,16,49). This might provide an explanation for the negative relationship between discomfort and pain thresholds and STAI-State score in patients with hypersensitive FD as found in the present study, complementary to the explanation based on anticipatory and/or attentional mechanisms stated above. The output of the EMS modulates the amount of (visceral) sensory information that reaches supraspinal centers at the level of both brainstem nuclei (nucleus of the solitary tract) and the dorsal horn of the spinal cord either directly or through the LC or rostral ventral medulla) (7,9,10,16,49). Again, testing these neurobiological hypotheses is beyond the scope of this study.

Anxiety is a complex, broad concept that can be defined and measured in several ways, and needs to be distinguished from fear. Anxiety and fear differ phenomenologically as well as neurobiologically, although both terms are often used incorrectly interchangeably (32,50). Barlow et al. (32) defined anxiety as a cognitive-affective structure composed of three key components: a future-oriented negative affective state (sense of uncontrollability focused on possible future negative events), a state of self-focused attention (especially focused on one's (inadequate) capabilities to deal with the threat, and preparedness to attempt to cope with upcoming events. Fear, on the contrary, is more stimulus-bound and limited in time; fear is conceptualized by Barlow et al. (32) as a distinct basic emotion that is fundamentally a behavioral act, characterized by the fight or flight response. The neurobiology underlying fear and anxiety is different (32,51), and they have divergent effects on somatic pain thresholds (52).

We used the STAI-State and STAI-Trait scales to measure anxiety. The STAI-State scale consists of 20 items asking the respondent how he or she feels at that particular moment in time, whereas the STAI-Trait scale asks people to describe how they generally feel (21–23). The definition of state anxiety by Spielberger and colleagues (21) shows considerable overlap with the anxiety definition by Barlow et al. (32), confirming that the STAI-State scale measures acute anxiety rather than fear (18). Moreover, the context of a barostat investigation can be seen as a case of uncertain expectation of an aversive event, which is associated with anxiety rather than fear (53). Thus, the negative relationship between STAI-State score and discomfort and pain thresholds in patients with hypersensitive FD that we observed is in line with the study by Rhudy and Meagher, who found lower somatic pain thresholds in healthy volunteers during anxiety as induced by uncertain expectation of pain (52). Certain expectation of aversive events, on the contrary, is associated with fear rather than anxiety and with somatic hypoalgesia (52,53). Furthermore, the negative relationship between state anxiety and gastric compliance in the present study is in line with the finding that experimentally induced anxiety is associated with significantly lower gastric compliance in healthy volunteers (20).

The STAI-Trait scale measures relatively stable individual differences in "anxiety proneness," that is, "differences between people in the tendency to perceive situations as threatening and to respond to them with elevations in state anxiety" (21–23,54). There is growing evidence that patients with FGID are hypervigilant to visceral cues, which are perceived as threatening and provoke anxiety (9,33). Thus, it is conceivable that more specific kinds of anxiety, focused on interoceptive cues, might be more important in FD than the anxiety proneness and resultant increases in general state anxiety, as measured by the STAI-Trait and STAI-State scales, respectively. This might explain why we did not find a significant relationship between STAI-Trait scores and gastric sensorimotor function or an association between STAI-State scores and visceral sensitivity in the whole patient group. It is possible that the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI) (55), a questionnaire that measures people's tendency to perceive innocuous interoceptive stimuli as harmful or threatening, is more related to gastric sensory and motor function in FD than STAI-State and STAI-Trait scores. Anxiety sensitivity is distinct from trait anxiety (19,56) and patients with FD have higher ASI scores (28). However, the ASI mainly addresses fear of cardiac and respiratory symptoms (55). Recently, Labus et al. developed and validated the visceral sensitivity index (VSI) which aims at measuring GI-specific anxiety (33). Investigating the relationship between VSI scores and GI sensorimotor function in FGID might provide further insight into the complex interaction between anxiety and GI function in health and disease.


   NOTES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 NOTES
REFERENCES
 
Dr. Van Oudenhove is a Research Fellow of the Research Foundation-Flanders.

Received for publication August 18, 2006; revision received December 11, 2006.

This study was funded by a grant from the Research Foundation-Flanders (J.T.).

The results of this study were, in part, presented in May 2005 at the annual meeting of the Digestive Disease Week, American Gastroenterological Association, Chicago, Illinois.

DOI:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180600a4a


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 NOTES
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Talley NJ, Stanghellini V, Heading RC, Koch KL, Malagelada JR, Tytgat GNJ. Functional gastroduodenal disorders. Gut 1999;45:37–42.[Medline]
  2. Tack J, Bisschops R, Sarnelli G. Pathophysiology and treatment of functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 2004;127:1239–55.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Tack J, Piessevaux H, Coulie B, Caenepeel P, Janssens J. Role of impaired gastric accommodation to a meal in functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 1998;115:1346–52.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Sarnelli G, Caenepeel P, Geypens B, Janssens J, Tack J. Symptoms associated with impaired gastric emptying of solids and liquids in functional dyspepsia. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:783–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Mertz H, Fullerton S, Naliboff B, Mayer EA. Symptoms and visceral perception in severe functional and organic dyspepsia. Gut 1998;42:814–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Tack J, Caenepeel P, Fischler B, Piessevaux H, Janssens J. Symptoms associated with hypersensitivity to gastric distention in functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 2001;121:526–35.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Van Oudenhove L, Demyttenaere K, Tack J, Aziz Q. Central nervous system involvement in functional gastrointestinal disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2004;18:663–80.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Budavari AI, Olden KW. Psychosocial aspects of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2003;32:477–506.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Mayer EA, Craske M, Naliboff BD. Depression, anxiety, and the gastrointestinal system. J Clin Psychiatry 2001;8(62 Suppl):28–36.
  10. Lydiard RB. Irritable bowel syndrome, anxiety, and depression: what are the links? J Clin Psychiatry 2001;8(62 Suppl):38–45.
  11. Locke R, Weaver AL, Joseph Melton L, Talley NJ. Psychosocial factors are linked to functional gastrointestinal disorders: a population based nested case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:350–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Cheng C. Seeking medical consultation: perceptual and behavioral characteristics distinguishing consulters and nonconsulters with functional dyspepsia. Psychosom Med 2000;62:844–52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Henningsen P, Zimmermann T, Sattel H. Medically unexplained physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression: a meta-analytic review. Psychosom Med 2003;65:528–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Derbyshire SWG. A systematic review of neuroimaging data during visceral stimulation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:12–20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Damasio AR, Grabowski TJ, Bechara A, Damasio H, Ponto LL, Parvizi J, Hichwa RD. Subcortical and cortical brain activity during the feeling of self-generated emotions. Nat Neurosci 2000;3:1049–56.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Jones MP, Dilley JB, Drossman D, Crowell MD. Brain-gut connections in functional GI disorders: anatomic and physiologic relationships. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2006;18:91–103.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Fischler B, Tack J, De Gucht V, Shkedy Z, Persoons P, Broekaert D, Molenberghs G, Janssens J. Heterogeneity of symptom pattern, psychosocial factors, and pathophysiological mechanisms in severe functional dyspepsia. Gastroenterology 2003;124:903–10.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Izard C, Youngstrom E. The activation and regulation of fear and anxiety. Nebr Symp Motiv 1996;43:1–59.[Medline]
  19. Reiss S. Trait anxiety: it's not what you think it is. J Anxiety Disord 1997;11:201–14.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Geeraerts B, Vandenberghe J, Van Oudenhove L, Gregory L, Aziz Q, Dupont P, Demyttenaere K, Janssens J, Tack J. Influence of experimentally induced anxiety on gastric sensorimotor function in man. Gastroenterology 2005;129:1437–44.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Spielberger C, Gorsuch R, Lushene R. Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1970.
  22. Van der Ploeg H: Handleiding bij de Zelf-Beoordelings Vragenlijst [Manual for the Dutch adaptation of the STAI-Y]. 2nd ed. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger; 2000.
  23. Spielberger C, Gorsuch R, Lushene R, Vagg P, Jacobs G: Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (form Y self-evaluation questionnaire). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983.
  24. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70.[Medline]
  25. Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers PP, Kempen GI, Speckens AE, Van Hemert AM. A validation study of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects. Psychol Med 1997;27:363–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Sarnelli G, Vos R, Cuomo R, Janssens J, Tack J. Reproducibility of gastric barostat studies in healthy controls and in dyspeptic patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1047–53.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D. The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale: an updated literature review. J Psychosom Res 2002;52:69–77.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Norton GR, Norton PJ, Asmundson GJG, Thompson LA, Larsen DK. Neurotic butterflies in my stomach: the role of anxiety, anxiety sensitivity and depression in functional gastrointestinal disorders. J Psychosom Res 1999;47:233–40.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Li Y, Nie Y, Sha W, Su H. The link between psychosocial factors and functional dyspepsia: an epidemiological study. Chin Med J (Engl) 2002;115:1082–4.[Medline]
  30. Geeraerts B, Van Oudenhove L, Tack J. Serotonin transporter gene polymorphisms in irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2006;18:957–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Hariri AR, Holmes A. Genetics of emotional regulation: the role of the serotonin transporter in neural function. Trends Cogn Sci 2006;10:182–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  32. Barlow D, Chorpita B, Turovsky J. Fear, panic, anxiety and disorders of emotion. Nebr Symp Motiv 1996;43:251–328.[Medline]
  33. Labus JS, Bolus R, Chang L, Wiklund I, Naesdal J, Mayer EA, Naliboff BD. The visceral sensitivity index: development and validation of a gastrointestinal symptom-specific anxiety scale. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;20:89–97.[Medline]
  34. Naliboff BD, Mayer EA. Brain imaging in IBS: drawing the line between cognitive and non-cognitive processes. Gastroenterology 2006;130:267–70.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Damasio AR. Emotion in the perspective of an integrated nervous system. Brain Res Rev 1998;26:83–86.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Kim J, Gorman J. The psychobiology of anxiety. Clin Neurosci Res 2005;4:335–47.[CrossRef]
  37. LeDoux J. The emotional brain, the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster: 1996.
  38. Gray J, McNaughton N. The neuropsychology of anxiety: reprise. Nebr Symp Motiv 1996;43:62–134.[Medline]
  39. Phan KL, Wager TD, Taylor SF, Liberzon I. Functional neuroimaging studies of human emotions. CNS Spectr 2004;9:258–66.[Medline]
  40. Thayer JF, Friedman BH, Borkovec TD. Autonomic characteristics of generalized anxiety disorder and worry. Biol Psychiatry 1996;39:255–66.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Friedman BH, Thayer JF. Anxiety and autonomic flexibility: a cardiovascular approach. Biol Psychol 1998;47:243–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Friedman BH, Thayer JF. Autonomic balance revisited: panic anxiety and heart rate variability. J Psychosom Res 1998;44:133–51.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Berntson GG, Sarter M, Cacioppo JT. Anxiety and cardiovascular reactivity: the basal forebrain cholinergic link. Behav Brain Res 1998;94:225–48.[CrossRef][Medline]
  44. Hausken T, Svebak S, Wilhelmsen I, Haug TT, Olafsen K, Pettersson E, Hveem K, Berstad A. Low vagal tone and antral dysmotility in patients with functional dyspepsia. Psychosom Med 1993;55:12–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Bennett EJ, Kellow JE, Cowan H, Scott AM, Shuter B, Langeluddecke PM, Hoschl R, Jones MP, Tennant CC. Suppression of anger and gastric emptying in patients with functional dyspepsia. Scand J Gastroenterol 1992;27:869–74.[Medline]
  46. Haug TT, Svebak S, Hausken T, Wilhelmsen I, Berstad A, Ursin H. Low vagal activity as mediating mechanism for the relationship between personality factors and gastric symptoms in functional dyspepsia. Psychosom Med 1994;56:181–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Holtmann G, Goebell H, Jockenhoevel F, Talley NJ. Altered vagal and intestinal mechanosensory function in chronic unexplained dyspepsia. Gut 1998;42:501–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Armario A, Marti O, Molina T, de Pablo J, Valdes M. Acute stress markers in humans: response of plasma glucose, cortisol and prolactin to two examinations differing in the anxiety they provoke. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1996;21:17–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
  49. Rhudy J, Meagher M. The role of emotion in pain modulation. Curr Opin Psychiatry 2001;14:241–5.[CrossRef]
  50. Chua P, Krams M, Toni I, Passingham R, Dolan R. A functional anatomy of anticipatory anxiety. NeuroImage 1999;9:563–71.[CrossRef][Medline]
  51. Walker DL, Toufexis DJ, Davis M. Role of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis versus the amygdala in fear, stress, and anxiety. Eur J Pharmacol 2003;463:199–216.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. Rhudy JL, Meagher MW. Fear and anxiety: divergent effects on human pain thresholds. Pain 2000;84:65–75.[CrossRef][Medline]
  53. Ploghaus A, Becerra L, Borras C, Borsook D. Neural circuitry underlying pain modulation: expectation, hypnosis, placebo. Trends Cogn Sci 2003;7:197–200.[CrossRef][Medline]
  54. Spielberger C: Theory and Research on Anxiety. In: Spielberger C, editor. Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press; 1966.
  55. Reiss S, Peterson RA, Gursky DM, McNally RJ. Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety frequency and the prediction of fearfulness. Behav Res Ther 1986;24:1–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  56. Sandin B, Chorot P, McNally RJ. Anxiety sensitivity index: normative data and its differentiation from trait anxiety. Behav Res Ther 2001;39:213–9.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GutHome page
L Van Oudenhove, J Vandenberghe, B Geeraerts, R Vos, P Persoons, B Fischler, K Demyttenaere, and J Tack
Determinants of symptoms in functional dyspepsia: gastric sensorimotor function, psychosocial factors or somatisation?
Gut, December 1, 2008; 57(12): 1666 - 1673.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Van Oudenhove, L.
Right arrow Articles by Tack, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Van Oudenhove, L.
Right arrow Articles by Tack, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Gastrointestinal
Right arrow Anxiety

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS