4.7 Article

Gastrointestinal motility disorder assessment in systemic sclerosis

期刊

RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 52, 期 6, 页码 1095-1100

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kes429

关键词

systemic sclerosis; scleroderma; gastrointestinal motility; oesophageal manometry; C-13-octanoate breath test; lactulose breath test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. SSc is a clinically heterogeneous and generalized disease, characterized by thickness of the connective tissue of the skin and internal organs, such as the digestive tract, impairing gastrointestinal (GI) motility. Our aim is to evaluate retrospectively abnormalities of oesophageal motility, gastric emptying, oro-cecal transit time (OCTT) and small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) in a large cohort of SSc patients. Methods. Ninety-nine SSc patients were included in the study. Forty-two patients underwent oesophageal conventional manometry, 45 performed a [C-13]octanoic acid breath test to measure gastric emptying time and all 99 patients performed a lactulose breath test in order to evaluate OCTT and SIBO. Data were compared with healthy controls. Results. In SSc patients, median lower oesophageal sphincter (LOS) pressure [14 mmHg (25th-75th; 8-19) vs 24 mmHg (19-28); P < 0.01] and median wave amplitude [30 mmHg (16-70) vs 72 mmHg (48-96); P < 0.01] were lower than in controls. Oesophageal involvement, defined as reduced LOS pressure and ineffective oesophageal motility pattern, was encountered in 70% of SSc patients. A delayed gastric emptying time was present in 38% of SSc patients: mean t(1/2) was 141 +/- 79 min vs 90 +/- 40 min of controls (P < 0.01). Also, OCTT was significantly delayed in SSc: median OCTT was 160 min (25th-75th; 135-180) vs 105 min (25th-75th; 90-135) of controls (P < 0.01). SIBO was observed in 46% of SSc compared with 5% of controls (P < 0.01). Conclusion. GI involvement is very frequent in SSc patients. Oesophagus and small bowel are more frequently impaired, whereas delayed gastric emptying is less common.

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