4.5 Article

Mucosal Healing in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis During a Course of Selective Leukocytapheresis Therapy: A Prospective Cohort Study

期刊

INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASES
卷 16, 期 11, 页码 1905-1911

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1002/ibd.21260

关键词

ulcerative colitis; clinical remission; endoscopic inflammation; mucosal healine; granulocyte and monocyte/macrophage adsorptive apheresis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: During active ulcerative colitis (UC), vast numbers of granulocytes, monocytes/macrophages (GM) infiltrate the mucosal tissue and can potentially exacerbate inflammation and injury. Accordingly, we were interested to see if selective depletion of GM by adsorption (GMA) impacts mucosal healing (MH) in UC patients. Methods: In all, 124 patients with clinically and endoscopically active UC received 5 or 10 GMA sessions at one or two sessions/week. The endoscopic severity of mucosal inflammation at entry and 1 week after the last GMA session were scored as follows: 0 = normal mucosa and inactive disease; I = mild inflammation; 2 = moderate inflammation; 3 = severe inflammation. Likewise, a score 0 or 1 at post-GMA course was defined as MH. Results: At entry the endoscopic severity of the mucosal inflammation was 2 in 100 patients (81%) and 3 in 24 patients (19%). Following the course of GMA, 56 patients (45%) achieved clinical remission (normal stool frequency and no rectal bleeding). Thirty-four of these 56 responders achieved MH; 32 (94%) of the 34 patients with MH had an endoscopic score of 2 (moderate inflammation) at entry. The maintained clinical remission rate was significantly higher in the 34 patients who achieved MH as compared with 22 patients who achieved clinical remission without MH (P = 0.0005). Conclusions: MU is achieved more frequently in patients with moderate than with severe endoscopic severity at entry. Further, patients with MH have a reduced risk of future clinical relapse as compared with patients who achieve remission without MH.

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

4.5
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