Original article

Effect of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy ongastrointestinal motility: evaluation by gastric-emptying
scintigraphy
Hideyuki Wakamatsua, Shigeki Nagamachia, Ryuichi Nishiib, Kazutaka Higakic,
Keiichi Kawaid, Kiyohisa Kamimurae, Seigo Fujitae, Shigemi Futamia
and Shozo Tamuraa
Purpose Firstly, to assess the effect of percutaneousendoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placement on gastric
emptying, gastrointestinal (GI) tract motility and the rate ofgastroesophageal reflux (GER). Secondly, to confirm
whether correlations exist between drug absorption
behaviour and GI tract motility using the combination
method of absorption function analysis with the motility
study.
Methods Subjects comprised 11 patients withneurological dysphagia. Gastric-emptying scintigraphy was
performed both before PEG via nasogastric tube feeding
and after PEG placement. After fasting for more than 8 h,each patient was administered 111 MBq of 99mTc-labelled
diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA) with a 100 ml
liquid meal via a nutrition tube. Dynamic imaging was
performed immediately after administration of aradiolabelled liquid meal for a 1 h period and static imaging
was performed after 1, 2, 3 and 6 h. Gastric emptying halftime (T50) was calculated in each patient, and GER ratio
and GI transit rate were also evaluated. Simultaneously, we
administered 10 mg of famotidine in six of the 11 patientsand measured serum concentrations of famotidine at 0, 1,
2, 3 and 6 h. Using the time–concentration curve of
famotidine, the maximum concentration of famotidine(Cmax) and area under the curve of famotidine (AUCf) were
calculated for each patient.
Results In seven of 11 patients, T50 changed after PEG
placement, but not significantly. The GER ratio wassignificantly decreased and complicated pneumonia
improved after PEG placement. GI transit rate for each GI
segment was unchanged after PEG placement. Significant

Introduction
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) was firstdescribed in 1980 by Gauderer et al. [1]. This method is
minimally invasive, technically simple and inexpensive.
PEG has thus been widely accepted to achieve an enteralaccess route in patients with dysphagia who require
chronic nutritional support. Previous reports havediscussed the effect of PEG on gastroesophageal
reflux (GER) [2–7], and some reports [3,4] have shown
0143-3636 c 2008 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

linear correlations were identified between T50 and both
Cmax and AUCf .
Conclusion Gastric-emptying scintigraphy with 99mTcDTPA was effective in the evaluation of GI transit before
and after PEG, as well as in assessing GER. Motility andfamotidine absorption were maintained after PEG
placement. Significant linear correlations were foundbetween T50 and both Cmax and AUCf. These findings
suggest that drug absorption may have some relationshipbetween T50. The result may be more reliable with a larger
population. Nucl Med Commun 29:562–567 c 2008
Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Nuclear Medicine Communications 2008, 29:562–567
Keywords: 99mTc-DTPA, famotidine, gastric emptying, gastrointestinal
motility, gastroesophageal refluxaDepartment of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Miyazaki University, bResearchInstitute, Shiga Medical Center, cDepartment of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama University, dSchool of Health Science,
Faculty of Medicine, Kanazawa University and eDepartment of Radiology,
Fujimoto-Hayasuzu Hospital, Miyakonojo, Japan

Correspondence to Dr Hideyuki Wakamatsu, Department of Radiology,
Faculty of Medicine, Miyazaki University, 5200 Kihara, Kiyotake-cho,Miyazaki 889-1692, Japan
Tel: + 81 985 85 9348; fax: + 81 985 85 3392;
e-mail: hide.w@helen.ocn.ne.jp
This work was presented, in part, at the 91st Scientific Assembly and Annual
Meeting of The Radiological Society of North America, Chicago, Illinois,
27 November to 2 December 2005.
Received 15 December 2007 Revised 2 January 2008
Accepted 3 January 2008

negative effects on GER. Few reports, however, havediscussed whether changes in whole gastrointestinal (GI)tract motility occur with PEG. Various gastroesophageal
motor studies have been reported, including both nuclear
studies and non-nuclear studies such as ultrasonography[8] and electrography [9]. However, some limitations in
non-nuclear studies are seen when evaluating whole GI
tract motility. The present study considered the effectsof PEG placement on gastric emptying, rate of GER andEffect of PEG on GI motility: evaluation by scintigraphy Wakamatsu et al. 563

whole GI tract motility by implementing GI tract
scintigraphy using 99mTc-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic
acid (DTPA) with a liquid meal. We assessed drug
absorption behaviour after famotidine administrationin six of 11 cases to confirm whether correlations exist
between drug absorption behaviours and GI tract motility.

Methods
Patients

This investigation complied with the tenets of the
Declaration of Helsinki promulgated in 1964 and wasapproved by the Institutional Review Board.
Characteristics of patients are presented in Table 1. We
evaluated 11 patients (seven men, four women; meanage, 82.4 ± 10.1 years; range, 67–98 years) who weretreated with the PEG procedure. Of these, nine patientsdisplayed sequelae of cerebrovascular disease and two
were suffering from spinocerebellar degeneration. Oral
ingestion was difficult due to neurological dysphagia andall had received nutritional management by nasogastrictube for several years. None of the patients had a historyof previous abdominal surgery. All patients underwent
PEG using a pull-type PEG kit (Ponsky ‘Pull’ PEG Kit;
Bard, Georgia, USA). PEG feeding was started after a 48 hobservation period. Elental (Ajinomoto, Tokyo, Japan)
was used for regular feeds. The volume of feeding was
gradually increased, reaching 200 ml  h – 1 with a total of1000 ml, three times per day. Total daily caloric content
was 1000–1500 kcal.
Scan protocol

We performed gastric-emptying scintigraphy before and 2
weeks after PEG placement. Any medication that had thepotential to interfere with gastric motility, such as
narcotic analgesics, anticholinergics, antidepressants,
calcium channel blockers and H2 blockers were discontinued for Z 24 h before scintigraphy. After fasting for> 8 h, each patient was administered 111 MBq of
99m
Tc-DTPA in a total of 100 ml with 300 kcal per 80 gof liquid meal via a nutrition tube. Elental (Ajinomoto,
Tokyo, Japan) was used for both test meal and regularfeeds. Elental is presented in powdered form andTable 1reconstituted using tap water. The content of the Elental
is as follows [10]: amino acids, 17.2%; carbohydrates,
79.4%; lipids, 0.7%; and electrolytes, 2%. We administered 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)
as a radiotracer and used a dual-head gamma camera
system (Millennium VG; GE Yokogawa Medical Systems,
Tokyo, Japan). First, we administered a 99mTc-DTPAlabelled liquid meal via a nutrition tube and conducted
dynamic scanning for 1 h. We then obtained 10 min static
scans of both lungs and the abdomen after 1, 2, 3 and 6 h.
Dynamic imaging was performed at a rate of 1 frame permin in a format of 128  128 pixels for 60 min using a
low-energy high-resolution collimator. Photopeak settings
were 20% at 140 keV for 99mTc. Static imaging was
performed in a format of 1024  1024 pixels using a lowenergy high-resolution collimator. All patients weresupine during this study. The dual heads of the gamma
camera were in the anterior and posterior positions andanterior projection images were obtained.
Image data analysis

Image data were analysed using a workstation (Genie P& R, version 2.5s; GE Yokogawa Medical Systems).
Gastric-emptying half-time (T50) was determined as thetime required to reach half the peak gastric counts using
continuous imaging data with decay correction. We also
evaluated GER ratio and GI transit rate. GER ratio was
calculated as the ratio of oesophageal activity to gastricactivity using continuous imaging data from start ofacquisition to 3 h with decay correction. The maximum
value in this time was used as the GER ratio. We
considered a GER ratio limit for normal less than 4.0%
[3]. GI transit rate was calculated by dividing the GI
tract activity into five segments: oesophagus, stomach,jejunum, ileum, and colon (Fig. 1). Regions of interest(ROIs) for the jejunum and ileum were located bydrawing a diagonal midline that approximately divided
the field of the whole small intestine. Counts for eachsegment were measured from each ROI and the relative
percentage of each ROI compared to the total count of
the image (GI transit rate) were calculated and a time–GI
transit rate curve was generated for each ROI. The area
under the curve of each GI segment (AUCs, AUCj, AUCi

Clinical characteristics of the patients

Patient

Age (years)

Sex

DiseaseOther diseases

Medication

1
2
3*
4*
5
6*
7*
8
9
10*
11*

89
71
72
67
94
91
91
79
82
82
98

M
M
M
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F

SCVD
SCVD
SCVD
SCD
SCVD
SCVD
SCVD
SCVD
SCVD
SCD
SCVD

Hypertension
Pneumonia
Hypertension, gastritis
Pneumonia, gastritis
Pneumonia, oesophagitis
Pneumonia, hypertension
None
Pneumonia, hypertension
Hypertension
Pneumonia
None

Antihypertensive agent
Antibiotics, anti-thrombotic agents
Antihypertensive agent, H2 blocker
Antibiotics, H2 blocker
Antibiotics, H2 blocker
Antibiotics, antihypertensive agent
None
Antibiotics, antihypertensive agent
Antihypertensive agent
Antibiotics
None

SCVD, sequela of cerebrovascular disease; SCD, spinocerebellar degeneration.
*Famotodine absorption study was performed.

564 Nuclear Medicine Communications 2008, Vol 29 No 6

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

T50 before and after PEG

Esophagus
Stomach

n.s.

(min)
180
160
140

Jejunum
120
Ileum
100
Colon

Gastrointestinal tract activity was divided into five segments:
oesophagus, stomach, jejunum, ileum, and cecum/colon. ROIs forthe jejunum and ileum were located by drawing a diagonal midlinethat approximately divided the field of the whole small intestine.

80
60
40
20
0

and AUCc) was calculated in each patient using thetrapezoid formula and compared between before andafter PEG.

Before PEG

After PEG

Changes in T50 before and after PEG. T50 was decreased in three of
11 patients, and increased in four patients. However, no significant
changes in T50 were identified after PEG placement.

Famotidine absorption study

Simultaneous administration of famotidine was performed in conjunction with a scintigraphic study for sixof the 11 subjects. This study was performed both prePEG and post-PEG using exactly the same technique. All
six patients were free from famotidine medication at least
3 days before this study. We administered 10 mg offamotidine via a nutrition tube. Blood samples wereobtained through a forearm venous catheter for multiple
blood samplings and placed in heparinized vials. Samples
were extracted just before and at 1, 2, 3 and 6 h afteradministration of famotidine. Blood samples were centrifuged and the plasma immediately stored at – 201C
until assay. Blood samples were delivered to Okayama
University for analysis. Concentrations of famotidine inplasma were determined using high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC). The maximum concentrationof famotidine (Cmax) and the area under the curve of
famotidine (AUCf) were calculated using the trapezoid
formula and the results compared with T50.
Statistical analysis

A non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-ranks test was used forstatistical comparisons between the two evaluations of
scintigraphic T50 and GER ratio. Pearson’s regression
analysis was used to evaluate correlations between T50
and both Cmax and AUCf. Values of P < 0.05 wereconsidered significant.

Results
Gastric-emptying half-time (T50)

Changes in T50 between pre-PEG and post-PEG placement are shown in Fig. 2. The T50 of pre-PEG and post-

PEG placement (mean ± SD) was 60.9 ± 37.3 and67.3 ± 51.8, respectively. T50 shortened in three patientsand increased in four patients after PEG placement, but
no significant changes were identified in any patients.
Gastroesophageal reflux ratio

Changes in GER ratio before and after PEG placement
are shown in Fig. 3. GER ratio of pre-PEG and post-PEG
placement (mean ± SD) was 2.53 ± 2.33 and 0.88 ± 0.85,
respectively. GER ratio decreased significantly after PEG
placement. Six of the 11 patients suffered from aspiration
pneumonia before PEG placement, five of the six
patients improved after the PEG placement. Among
those five patients, three patients were scintigraphically
positive for GER before PEG, all of these three patients
showed as decreased GER ratio within normal limit after
PEG placement. A representative case is presented inFig. 4. In association with this finding, aspiration
pneumonia improved in all five patients. However,one patient who displayed continued GER after PEG
placement did not recover from aspiration pneumonia.
Gastrointestinal transit rate

GI transit rate was calculated in each segment. Time–GI
transit rate curves of each GI segment before and after
PEG placement are presented in Fig. 5. In pre-PEG
placement, area under the curve of each GI segment(AUCs, AUCj, AUCi and AUCc) (mean ± SD) were120.77 ± 54.09, 100.27 ± 50.76, 171.35 ± 63.64 and
130.66 ± 51.20, respectively, while in post-PEG placement, those were 93.51 ± 24.48, 126.87 ± 64.23,

Effect of PEG on GI motility: evaluation by scintigraphy Wakamatsu et al. 565

Fig. 3Fig. 5

GER ration before and after PEG
8

Time–GI transit rate of each GI segment before and after PEG(%)
100
StomachP < 0.05

7
6

80
60
40
20

3

Jejunum

4

60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Ileum

GER ratio (%)

0
5

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

2
1
0
Before PEG

After PEG

Changes in GER ratio. GER ratio was significantly decreased after
PEG placement.

Colon

80

Fig. 460
40
20

Case 2: A 71-year-old man
Gastric-emptying scintigraphy before and after PEG

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

120

180

360
(min)

1

2

3

Before PEG

60Time (h)

1

2

3

6

After PEG

Before PEG
This shows dynamic percentage curves for each GI segment before
and after PEG placement. Each point shows mean ± SD. The
percentage of each GI segment did not change significantly between
before and after PEG placement.

After PEGGER ratio (%)
Before PEG
After PEG

5.93
0.56

The case is a 71-year-old man. This patient suffered from GER (arrows)
and aspiration pneumonia before PEG placement. After PEG
placement, GER reflux disappeared and GER ratio decreased.

183.08 ± 52.36 and 126.63 ± 51.08, respectively. The
AUC of each GI segment did not change significantly
between before and after PEG placement and GI transit
rate for each GI segment remained stable after PEG
placement.
Famotidine absorption study

The time–concentration curve of famotidine for the six
patients is presented in Fig. 6. This study was performed

both pre-PEG and post-PEG using exactly the same
technique. The AUCf of pre-PEG and post-PEG
placement (mean ± SD) was 108.48 ± 37.69 and115.14 ± 68.48, respectively. AUCf did not change
significantly between before and after PEG placement.
Significant linear correlations were seen between T50 andboth Cmax (Fig. 7) and AUCf (Fig. 8)

Discussion
We evaluated changes in T50, GER ratio and GI transit
rate by dynamic gastrointestinal scintigraphy using a
99m
Tc-DTPA-labelled liquid meal. T50 decreased in threepatients and increased in four patients, but was not
significantly changed after PEG placement. In five of thesix patients in which aspiration pneumonia was discovered during NGT nutrition, pneumonia improved after
PEG placement. In association with this finding, among

566 Nuclear Medicine Communications 2008, Vol 29 No 6

Fig. 6Time concentration curve of famotidine before and after PEG(ng/ml)
50
40
30
20
10
0

0

1

2

3

6

0

1

2

3

6

Time (h)Before PEG

After PEG

This shows the time–concentration curve of famotidine in six patients
before and after PEG placement. Each point shows mean ± SD. The
time–concentration curve profile did not change significantly after PEG
placement.

those five patients, three were scintigraphically positive
for GER before PEG, all of the three patients showed adecreased GER ratio within normal limit and pneumonia
improved after PEG placement. Cole et al. [3] found that
the GER ratio is normally 4.0%. All patients after PEG
placement showed a low GER ratio within this limit. Ourfindings suggest that PEG placement, and to be free from
NGT nutrition, does not worsen GER or aspiration
pneumonia. These findings are consistent with previous
reports that have mentioned that PEG placement does
not worsen GER [2,5–7]. None of the previous reports
have shown changes in T50 or GI transit rate between
before and after PEG. In our study, T50 did not
significantly change after PEG placement. AUC of each
GI segment did not significantly change after PEG
placement and GI transit rate remained stable after
PEG placement. We have deleted ‘gastrointestinal
motility’ and corrected as follows.

Fig. 7

Correlation between T50 and Cmax
(ng/ml)60
50

Y = 38.503−0.188X R2 = 0.424
P = 0.014

Cmax

40
30

These findings suggest that fixation of the stomach using
PEG procedures is not always detrimental to gastric
emptying. We consider that most PEG procedure fixes
anterior, middle portion of the stomach, therefore thisprocedure might not affect both of the gastric fundic lagphase and gastric antral motility. Both of lag phase andgastric antral motility are important in considering gastric
emptying motility.

20
10
0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Time (min)T50

Comparison of T50 and Cmax. A significant linear correlation was
identified.

Fig. 8Correlation between T50 and AUCF
(ng/ml.h)250
Y = 165.791−0.885X R2 = 0.522
P < 0.001

AUCF

200
150
100
50
0
0

20

40

60

80 100 120 140 160 180 Time (min)T50

Comparison of T50 and AUCf. A significant linear correlation was
identified.

We evaluated famotidine absorption simultaneously in sixof the 11 patients. AUCf did not change significantly
between before and after PEG placement, suggestingthat PEG procedures are also not always detrimental todrug absorption. Analyses also identified significant linear
correlations between T50 and both Cmax and AUCf. Haruta
et al. [11] found that the plasma concentration–timeprofile was able to be predicted using individual
gastrointestinal scintigraphic data and a GI-transit–
absorption model. This finding suggests that drug
absorption may have some relationship with T50. Some
reports have noted that motility of the stomach changes
when H2 receptor blockers or proton pump inhibitors
such as famotidine are administered [12,13]. In addition,
H2 receptor blockers are suggested to provide cholinergic
properties that influence GI motility [14,15]. We
evaluated influences on the stomach of not only PEG,
but also famotidine, as we administered 99mTc-DTPA andfamotidine at the same time. A famotidine plasma
concentration of 13 ng  ml – 1 reportedly inhibits gastricacid secretion by 50% [16]. In this study, because famotidine dosage was low, gastric emptying was completed inmost patients before reaching 13 ng  ml – 1. In addition, atime lag is thought to exist between pH increases andmotility change. In fact, one report has mentioned that
gastric pH begins to rise with administration of 20 mg oforal famotidine after 2 h [17]. In addition, another report
describes comparatively minor cholinergic properties forEffect of PEG on GI motility: evaluation by scintigraphy Wakamatsu et al. 567

famotidine among H2 receptor blockers [15]. Given that
only 10 mg of famotidine was used in this study, theinfluence of any pH change on gastric motility is low.
LimitationsFirst, the subject population especially drug absorption inthis study was small and findings may differ in anotherstudy. Second, ROIs for the stomach and colon were
easily identified because of the characteristic anatomy,
but ROIs for the jejunum and ileum were located bydrawing a diagonal midline that approximately divided
the field of the whole small intestine, meaning that
reproducibility may be low and interobserver andintraobserver variations may be large. Finally, this study
was conducted under fasted conditions, which may offerdiffering results to fed conditions. Further studies are
required to clarify these issues.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Conclusion
Gastric-emptying scintigraphy with 99mTc-DTPA waseffective in the evaluation of GI transit before and after
PEG, as well as for assessing GER. GER significantly
decreased after PEG placement and complications of
GER and aspiration pneumonia typically disappeared
after PEG placement. Motility and famotidine absorption
were maintained after PEG placement. Significant linear
correlations were identified between T50 and both Cmax
and AUCf. These findings suggest that drug absorption
may have some relationship between T50. The result may
be more reliable with a larger population.

Acknowledgements

10

11

12

13

14

15

This work was supported by Seiji Obara, RT, andTomohiro Doumen, RT, at Fujimoto-Hayasuzu Hospital.

16

References

17

1

Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant Jr RJ. Gastrostomy without laparotomy:a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg 1980; 15:872–875.

Launay V, Gottrand F, Turck D, Michaud L, Ategbo S, Farriaux JP.
Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children: influence on
gastroesophageal reflux. Pediatrics 1996; 97:726–728.
Cole MJ, Smith JT, Molnar C, Shaffer EA. Aspiration after percutaneous
gastrostomy. Assessment by Tc-99m labeling of the enteral feed. J Clin
Gastroenterol 1987; 9:90–95.
Balan KK, Vinjamuri S, Maltby P, Bennett J, Woods S, Playfer JR, et al.
Gastroesophageal reflux in patients fed by percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy (PEG): detection by a simple scintigraphic method. Am J
Gastroenterol 1998; 93:946–949.
Razeghi S, Lang T, Behrens R. Influence of percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy on gastroesophageal reflux: a prospective study in 68 children.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2002; 35:27–30.
Samuel M, Holmes K. Quantitative and qualitative analysis ofgastroesophageal reflux after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.
J Pediatr Surg 2002; 37:256–261.
Isch JA, Rescorla FJ, Scherer 3rd LR, West KW, Grosfeld JL. The
development of gastroesophageal reflux after percutaneous endoscopic
gastrostomy. J Pediatr Surg 1997; 32:321–322.
Gilja OH, Detmer PR, Jong JM, Leotta DF, Li XN, Beach KW, et al.
Intragastric distribution and gastric emptying assessed by three-dimensional
ultrasonography. Gastroenterology 1997; 113:38–49.
Conchillo JM, Nguyen NQ, Samsom M, Holloway RH, Smout AJ.
Multichannel intraluminal impedance monitoring in the evaluation ofpatients with non-obstructive dysphagia. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100:
2624–2632.
Tanaka T, Takahama K, Kimura T, Mizuno T, Nagasaka M, Iwata K, et al. Effectof concurrent elemental diet on infliximab treatment for Crohn’s disease.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 21:1143–1149.
Haruta S, Kawai K, Nishii R, Jinnouchi S, Ogawara K, Higaki K, et al.
Prediction of plasma concentration–time curve of orally administeredtheophylline based on a scintigraphic monitoring of gastrointestinal transit
in human volunteers. Int J Pharm 2002; 233:179–190.
Parkman HP, Urbain JL, Knight LC, Brown KL, Trate DM, Miller MA, et al.
Effect of gastric acid suppressants on human gastric motility. Gut 1998;
42:243–250.
Kerrigan DD, Mangnall YF, Read NW, Johnson AG. Influence of acid-pepsin
secretion on gastric emptying of solids in humans: studies with cimetidine.
Gut 1991; 32:1295–1297.
Bertaccini G, Coruzzi G. Cholinergic-like effects of the newhistamine H2-receptor antagonist ranitidine. Agents Actions 1982;
12:168–171.
Parkman HP, Pagano AP, Ryan JP. Ranitidine and nizatidine stimulate antral
smooth muscle contractility via excitatory cholinergic mechanisms. Dig Dis
Sci 1998; 43:497–505.
Miwa M, Tani N, Miwa T. Inhibition of gastric secretion by a new
H2-antagonist, YM-11170 in healthy subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol
Ther Toxicol 1984; 22:214–217.
Adachi K, Komazawa Y, Mihara T, Azumi T, Fujisawa T, Katsube T, et al.
Comparative study of the speed of acid-suppressing effects of oral
administration of cimetidine and famotidine. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;
20:1012–1015.