4.3 Article

Colonic transendoscopic tube-delivered enteral therapy (with video): a prospective study

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12876-020-01285-0

关键词

Transendoscopic enteral tubing; Fecal microbiota transplantation; Enema; Colonoscopy; Method

资金

  1. Jiangsu Province Creation Team and Leading Talents project
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81670495, 81600417]
  3. Topnotch Talent Research Projects [LGY2017080]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundColonic transendoscopic enteral tubing (TET) refers to colonic transendoscopic tube-delivered enteral therapy. Colonic TET has been successfully used for frequent colonic administration of drugs or multiple fecal microbiota transplantations (FMTs). This prospective observational study aimed to evaluate possible factors affecting methodology, feasibility and safety of colonic TET.MethodsPatients who underwent colonic TET at our center from October 2014 to November 2018 were included. The feasibility, efficacy, and safety of TET were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 224 patients were analyzed. The success rate of TET was 100%. The median retention time of TET tube within the colonic lumen was 8.5 (IQR 7-11) days in 158 patients with tube falling out spontaneously, and the maximum retention time was up to 28days. These patients were divided into the short-retention group (<= 8.5days) and the long-retention group (>8.5days). Univariate and multivariate analysis demonstrated that the type of endoscopic clip (p=0.001) was an independent factor for the retention time. The larger clips as well as a greater number of clips significantly affected the retention time (p=0.013). No severe adverse event was observed during and after TET.ConclusionsColonic TET is a feasible, practical, and safe colon-targeted drug delivery technique with a high degree of patients' satisfaction. Two to four large endoscopic clips are recommended to maintain stability of the TET tube within the colon for over 7days.

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