4.7 Article

Features of capsule endoscopy in COVID-19 patients with a six-month follow-up: A prospective observational study

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDICAL VIROLOGY
卷 94, 期 1, 页码 246-252

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmv.27308

关键词

capsule endoscopy; COVID-19; follow-up; SARS-CoV-2

类别

资金

  1. Science and Technology Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China [2020FCA014]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81720108006, 81800467, 81770637]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

COVID-19 can impact the digestive system, leading to symptoms such as gastritis and intestinal mucosa inflammation. Even after discharge, some patients may still experience intestinal lesions and gastrointestinal symptoms.
Recently, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused a global pandemic. Several studies indicate that the digestive system can also be affected by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Therefore, patients with digestive symptoms should have a capsule endoscopy (CE). COVID-19 patients with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms who underwent CE were recruited from March 2020 to April 2020. We collected patients' data and performed a prospective follow-up study for 6 months. All 11 COVID-19 cases with GI symptoms who underwent CE presented gastritis. Eight cases (72.7%) had intestinal mucosa inflammation. Among them, two cases showed intestinal ulcers or erosions. Moreover, two cases displayed colonic mucositis. One case was lost during follow-up. At 3-6 months after hospital discharge, five patients underwent CE again, presenting gastrointestinal lesions. Five of the 10 cases had GI symptoms, such as abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, and others. Among these five cases, the GI symptoms of three patients disappeared at the last follow-up and two patients still presented diarrhea symptoms. Overall, we observed damaged digestive tract mucosa that could be caused by SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, after discharge, some patients still presented intestinal lesions and GI symptoms.

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