4.6 Article

Clinical significance of the glucose breath test in patients with inflammatory bowel disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 30, 期 6, 页码 990-994

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12908

关键词

glucose breath test; inflammatory bowel disease; small intestinal bacterial overgrowth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and AimSmall intestinal bacterial overgrowth which has recently been diagnosed with the glucose breath test is characterized by excessive colonic bacteria in the small bowel, and results in gastrointestinal symptoms that mimic symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease. This study aimed to estimate the positivity of the glucose breath test and investigate its clinical role in inflammatory bowel disease. MethodsPatients aged >18 years with inflammatory bowel disease were enrolled. All patients completed symptom questionnaires. Fecal calprotectin level was measured to evaluate the disease activity. Thirty historical healthy controls were used to determine normal glucose breath test values. ResultsA total of 107 patients, 64 with ulcerative colitis and 43 with Crohn's disease, were included. Twenty-two patients (20.6%) were positive for the glucose breath test (30.2%, Crohn's disease; 14.1%, ulcerative colitis). Positive rate of the glucose breath test was significantly higher in patients with Crohn's disease than in healthy controls (30.2% vs 6.7%, P=0.014). Bloating, flatus, and satiety were higher in glucose breath test-positive patients than glucose breath test-negative patients (P=0.021, 0.014, and 0.049, respectively). The positivity was not correlated with the fecal calprotectin level. ConclusionsThe positive rate of the glucose breath test was higher in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, especially Crohn's disease than in healthy controls; gastrointestinal symptoms of patients with inflammatory bowel disease were correlated with this positivity. Glucose breath test can be used to manage intestinal symptoms of patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

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