4.7 Article

Novel endoscopic activity index is useful for choosing treatment in severe active ulcerative colitis patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 45, 期 9, 页码 936-943

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s00535-010-0244-2

关键词

Cyclosporine A; Endoscopic activity index; Ulcerative colitis

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22590696] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim Clinical symptoms are the most important factors used by physicians to evaluate the severity and extent of ulcerative colitis (UC). In this context, colonoscopy is also a useful diagnostic tool. We have recently developed an endoscopic activity index (EAI) to assess the severity of UC. Here, we assess the correlations among the EAI, other endoscopic indices, and clinical scores. The usefulness of the EAI for choosing treatment options, such as intravenous corticosteroid or cyclosporine A (CsA), in severe UC patients was also evaluated. Methods Clinical symptoms and endoscopic finding were evaluated in 396 patients with UC (454 colonoscopies). The EAI was scored using the following six items: ulcer size, ulcer depth, redness, bleeding, edema, and mucus exudates. The patients were also scored using Matts' grade, Rachmilewitz's endoscopic index, and the Lichtiger index. Results Our results showed that (1) the EAI scores were closely correlated with those of the Lichtiger index, Matts' grade, and Rachmilewitz's endoscopic index; (2) the EAI scores significantly decreased in patients who responded to treatment, while Matts' grade did not change in some responders treated with intravenous CsA and steroid; (3) patients with a higher EAI (14-16) tended to be refractory to corticosteroid therapy (responders 19%) compared to CsA (77%), while steroid treatment was effective in 58% of patients with EAI scores of 11-13. Conclusions The EAI is equivalent to other endoscopic indices and relatively more useful in choosing a treatment for patients with severe UC.

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

4.7
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