Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 81–85 | Cite as

Esophageal Visceral Sensitivity to Bile Salts in Patients with Functional Heartburn and in Healthy Control Subjects

  • Ali Siddiqui
  • Sheila Rodriguez-StanleyEmail author
  • Sattar Zubaidi
  • Philip B. MinerJr.

Patients with nonerosive gastroesophageal reflux disease often have relatively low esophageal acid exposure and respond suboptimally to gastric acid suppression. In these patients, other constituents of gastric contents may induce esophageal symptoms. We have demonstrated that gastric contents can cause heartburn when the gastric pH > 4. (Aliment Pharm Ther 14:129–134, 2000). The aim of this study was to determine relative sensitivities to chenodeoxycholic and ursodeoxycholic acids, and 0.1 N HCl, administered as provocative perfusion tests. Patients with functional heartburn and healthy control subjects were evaluated. Patients underwent a modified Bernstein acid infusion test and esophageal Barostat balloon distention. Time and volume to pain were recorded. Barostat balloon distention was performed using our standard protocol. Stepwise distentions were performed and pain was recorded. Sensitivity to chenodeoxycholic acid (Cheno) and Ursodeoxycholic acid (Urso) were assessed similarly to the Bernstein test using 2 mM concentrations of each, followed immediately by 5 mM if no pain was reported with 2 mM. Volume of bile acid infusion and length of time until pain was induced were assessed and compared to the same endpoints for acid sensitivity. “Total” time and “total” volume to induce pain were calculated for Cheno and Urso. Least-squares means were generated and two-tailed t-tests and regression analyses were performed (P < 0.05 level of significance). Ten functional heartburn patients and six healthy controls were evaluated (3 M, 13 F; age range, 19 to 56 years). Since five of six controls had pain with acid infusion (hypersensitive), all subjects were analyzed as one group. Only three subjects (all controls) had no pain with infusion of 2 mM Cheno and received the follow-up infusion of 5 mM. These same three subjects tolerated the maximum infusion (150 ml and 15 min) of 5 mM Cheno. Nine subjects did not have pain with 2 mM Urso and received the follow-up infusion of 5 mM Urso (five functional heartburn, four controls). Significantly more subjects tolerated the maximum bile acid infusion of 2 mM Urso vs 2 mM Cheno (nine vs three; P < 0.05, Chi-square test). The pain threshold (volume and time) for Urso was significantly higher than that for Cheno and acid (P < 0.05), and the pain threshold for Cheno was significantly higher than that for acid (P < 0.05). Conclusions are as follows: (1) Bile acids differ in their ability to induce pain. (2) Changing bile acid composition by treatment with Urso may change symptom presentation and symptom severity in patients with bile acid-induced esophageal pain.


esophageal sensitivity bile acids functional heartburn bile reflux 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rodriguez SL, Earnest DL, Greenwood-Van Meerveld B, Maton P, Miner PB, Robinson M: Esophageal hypersensitivity may be a major cause of heartburn. Am J Gastroenterol 94(3):628–631, 1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Drossman DA: Rome II: The Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders, 2nd ed. 2000Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rodriguez-Stanley S, Zubaidi S, Ciociola A, Miner P: Are patients with functional heartburn sensitive to both mechanical and chemical stimuli?. Am J Gastroenterol 97(9):A115, 2002Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodriguez-Stanley S, Ciociola A, Bochenek W, Zubaidi S, Miner PB: Ranitidine 150 mg rapidly increases pain threshold and decreases symptom severity with acid infusion in patients with functional heartburn. Gastroenterology 124(4, Suppl 1):A221, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schidlbeck NE, Heinrich C, Stellard F, Paumgartner G, Muller-Lissner SA: Healthy controls have as much bile reflux as gastric ulcer patients. Gut 88:1577–1583, 1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vaezi MF, Singh S, Richter JE: Role of acid and duodenogastric reflux in esophageal mucosal injury: A review of animal and human studies. Gastroenterology 108:1897–1907, 1995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Champion G, Richter JE, Vaezi MF, Singh S, Alexander R: Duodenogastroesophageal reflux: Relationship to pH and importance in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 107:747–754, 1994PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Attwood SE, Ball CS, Barlow AP, Jenkinson L, Norris TL, Watson A: Role of intragastric and intraesophageal alkalinization in the genesis of complications in Barrett’s columnar lined lower esophagus. Gut 34:11–15, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harmon JW, Johnson LF, Maydonvitch CL: Effects of acid and bile salts on the rabbit esophageal mucosa. Dig Dis Sci 26:65–72, 1981PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vaezi MF, Richter JE: Duodenogastro-oesophageal reflux. Baillieres Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 14(5):719–729, 2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thiesen J, Peters JH, Stein HJ: Experimental evidence for mutagenic potential of duodenogastric juice on Barrett’s esophagus. World J Surg 27:1018–1020, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stefaniwsky AB, Speck TJ, Shefer SS: Ursodeoxycholic acid treatment of bile reflux gastritis. Gastro 89:1000–1004, 1985Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Im E, Martinez JD: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). J Nutr 134:483–486, 2004PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bernstein LM, Baker LA: A clinical test for esophagitis. Gastroenterology 34:760–781, 1958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thaysen EH, Pedersen I: Idiopathic bile acid catharsis. Gut 17(12):965–970, 1976PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gelbman CM, Schteingart CD, Thompson SM, Hofman AF, Barrett KE: Mast Cells and histamine contribute to bile acid-stimulated secretion in the mouse colon. J Clin Invest 95:2831–2839, 1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rodriguez-Stanley S, Zubaidi S, Miner PB. Esophageal sensitivity to barostat balloon distention and Bernstein acid infusion: which test is best?. Am J Gastroenterology 96(9):A:103, 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ali Siddiqui
    • 1
  • Sheila Rodriguez-Stanley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sattar Zubaidi
    • 1
  • Philip B. MinerJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Oklahoma Foundation for Digestive ResearchOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations