4.3 Article

Evidence of Intestinal Inflammation in Patients With Cystic Fibrosis

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3181d1b013

关键词

calprotectin; capsule endoscopy; cystic fibrosis

资金

  1. North American CF Foundation
  2. Given Imaging PLC, Yokneam, Israel

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Treatment with pancreatic enzymes fails to completely correct malabsorption and gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The aim of the present study was to examine the small intestine of patients with CF without overt evidence of gastrointestinal disease using capsule endoscopy (CE). Methods: Patients with CF received the agile patency capsule and, depending on the result of that procedure, then underwent standard CE using the Pill Cam SB capsule (Given Imaging, Yokneam, Israel). A stool specimen was taken on the same day as the CE for determination of the calprotectin level. Results: Forty-two patients with CF ages 10 to 36 years were included; 29 had pancreatic insufficiency. One patient failed to excrete the patency capsule after 36 hours and was withdrawn from the study. Pulmonary function was mild to moderate with FEV1 68.5% +/- 16% predicted. Review of the CE videos showed that most of the patients had varying degrees of diffuse areas of inflammatory findings in the small bowel including edema, erythema, mucosal breaks, and frank ulcerations. There were no adverse events. Fecal calprotectin levels were markedly high in patients with pancreatic insufficiency, 258 mu g/g (normal <50). Conclusions: Small bowel mucosal pathology may be detected using CE in most of the patients with CF. The high fecal calprotectin levels found are suggestive of mucosal inflammation, which may correlate with the CE findings. Additional study is required to examine the possible relation of these mucosal lesions, which may be part of a newly identified enteropathy associated with CF, with persistent intestinal malabsorption in many of these 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

4.3
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