4.7 Article

Moderate Effect of Duodenal-Jejunal Bypass Surgery on Glucose Homeostasis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes

期刊

OBESITY
卷 20, 期 6, 页码 1266-1272

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2011.377

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [UL1 RR024992, DK 56841]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gastric bypass surgery causes resolution of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), which has led to the hypothesis that upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract diversion, itself, improves glycemic control. The purpose of this study was to determine whether UGI tract bypass without gastric exclusion has therapeutic effects in patients with T2DM. We performed a prospective trial to assess glucose and beta-cell response to an oral glucose load before and at 6, 9, and 12 months after duodenal-jejunal bypass (DJB) surgery. Thirty-five overweight or obese adults (BMI: 27.0 +/- 4.0 kg/m(2)) with T2DM and 35 sex-, age-, race-, and BMI-matched subjects with normal glucose tolerance (NGT) were studied. Subjects lost weight after surgery, which was greatest at 3 months (6.9 +/- 4.9%) with subsequent regain to 4.2 +/- 5.3% weight loss at 12 months after surgery. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) decreased from 9.3 +/- 1.6% before to 7.7 +/- 2.0% at 12 months after surgery (P < 0.001), in conjunction with a 20% decrease in the use of diabetes medications (P < 0.05); 7 (20%) subjects achieved remission of diabetes (no medications and HbA(1c) <6.5%). The area under the curve after glucose ingestion was similar to 20% lower for glucose but doubled for insulin and C-peptide at 12 months, compared with pre-surgery values (all P < 0.01). However, the beta-cell response was still 70% lower than subjects with NGT (P < 0.001). DJB surgery improves glycemic control and increases, but does not normalize the beta-cell response to glucose ingestion. These findings suggest that altering the intestinal site of delivery of ingested nutrients has moderate therapeutic effects by improving beta-cell function and glycemic control.

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