4.7 Article

13C-mixed triglyceride breath test to assess oral enzyme substitution therapy in patients with chronic pancreatitis

期刊

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 484-488

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.01.004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & Aims: Malnutrition persists in most patients with chronic pancreatitis despite an adequate clinical response to oral pancreatic enzyme substitution therapy. Our aims were to analyze the accuracy of the 13 C-mixed triglyceride breath test as a tool for evaluating the effect of enzyme therapy on fat digestion in chronic pancreatitis, and to analyze the impact of modifying the therapy according to the breath test on patients' nutritional status. Methods: The accuracy of the breath test for monitoring the effect of therapy was evaluated prospectively in 29 patients with maldigestion secondary to chronic pancreatitis by using the coefficient of fat absorption as the gold standard. Therapy was modified to obtain a normal breath test result in a further 20 chronic pancreatitis patients with malnutrition despite an adequate clinical response to the enzyme therapy; the impact of this therapeutic modification on patients' nutritional status was evaluated. Results: The coefficient of fat absorption and. breath test results were similar when assessing fat absorption before and during treatment. Modification of the enzyme therapy to normalize fat absorption as assessed by the breath test in the second group of 20 patients was associated with a significant increase of body weight (P <.001), and serum concentrations of retinol binding protein (P <.001) and prealbumin (P <.001). Conclusions: The 13 C-mixed triglyceride breath test is an accurate method to evaluate the effect of enzyme therapy on fat digestion. This method is simpler than the standard fecal fat test to assess therapy in patients with pancreatic exocrine insufficiency. Normalizing fat absorption improves nutrition in 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

4.7
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