4.6 Article

Gastrointestinal Dysfunction in Patients with Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163779

关键词

-

资金

  1. Zurich Lung League

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background In adult patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) life-threatening constipation has been reported. Since gastrointestinal function in DMD has not been rigorously studied we investigated objective and subjective manifestations of gastrointestinal disturbances in DMD patients. Methods In 33 patients with DMD, age 12-41 years, eating behavior and gastrointestinal symptoms were evaluated by questionnaires. Gastric emptying half time (T-1/2) and oro-cecal transit time (OCTT) were evaluated by analyzing (CO2)-C-13 exhalation curves after ingestion of C-13 labeled test meals. Colonic transit time (CTT) was measured by abdominal radiography following ingestion of radiopaque markers. Results The median (quartiles) T-1/2 was 187 (168, 220) minutes, the OCTT was 6.3 (5.0, 7.9) hours, both substantially longer than normal data (Goetze 2005, T-1/2: 107 +/- 10; Geypens 1999, OCTT 4.3 +/- 0.1 hours). The median CTT was 60 (48, 82) hours despite extensive use of laxative measures (Meier 1995, upper limit of normal: 60 hours). T-1/2 and OCTT did not correlate with symptoms evaluated by the Gastroparesis Cardinal Symptom Index (GCSI) (Spearman r = -0.3, p = 0.1; and r = -0.15, p = 0.4, respectively). CTT was not correlated with symptoms of constipation assessed by ROME III criteria (r = 0.12, p = 0.5). Conclusions DMD patients have a markedly disturbed gastrointestinal motor function. Since objective measures of impaired gastrointestinal transport are not correlated with symptoms of gastroparesis or constipation our findings suggest that measures assuring adequate intestinal transport should be taken independent of the patient's perception in order to prevent potentially life threatening constipation, particularly in older DMD patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据