4.6 Article

Caffeine for intestinal transit after laparoscopic colectomy: randomized clinical trial (CaCo trial)

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 109, Issue 12, Pages 1216-1223

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bjs/znac265

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Research Committee of the Kantonsspital St Gallen [14/14]
  2. Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-Rhyner Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to evaluate whether caffeine could shorten the time to first bowel movement after laparoscopic colectomy. The results showed that caffeine was not associated with reduced time to first bowel movement.
Background: Coffee has been suggested to help postoperative gastrointestinal motility but the mechanism is not known. This trial assessed whether caffeine shortened time to bowel activity after laparoscopic colectomy. Methods: This was a single-centre, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled superiority trial (October 2015 to August 2020). Patients aged at least 18 years undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy were assigned randomly to receive 100 mg or 200 mg caffeine, or a placebo (250 mg corn starch) three times a day orally. The primary endpoint was the time to first bowel movement. Secondary endpoints included colonic transit time, time to tolerance of solid food, duration of hospital stay, and perioperative morbidity. Results: Sixty patients were assigned randomly to either the 200-mg caffeine group (20 patients), the 100-mg caffeine group (20) or the placebo group (20). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean(s.d.) time to first bowel movement was 67.9(19.2) h in the 200-mg caffeine group, 68.2(32.2) h in the 100-mg caffeine group, and 67.3(22.7) h in the placebo group (P = 0.887). The per-protocol analysis and measurement of colonic transit time confirmed no measurable difference with caffeine. Conclusion: Caffeine was not associated with reduced time to first bowel movement.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available