4.4 Article

Gastroparesis after combined heart and lung transplantation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 34-39

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00004836-200201000-00007

关键词

gastroparesis; heart-lung transplantation; prevalence; gastric emptying scintigraphy

资金

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR00349] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [K24 DK02921] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [M01RR000349] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [K24DK002921] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goals: To determine the prevalence, severity, and outcome of gastroparesis after heart and lung transplantation (HLT). Study: Ten patients (five women; age range, 27-57 years) underwent HLT at Temple University Hospital from 1996 to 1999. The chart of these patients were reviewed, including results from gastric emptying scans and upper endoscopies. Symptoms were assessed with a standardized questionnaire. Results: The indications for HLT included pulmonary hypertension in six patients, Eisen-menger syndrome in two, and dilated cardiomyopathy and congenital heart disease in two. Four patients died before the start of this clinical analysis. The six surviving patients constituted our study population. The patients' posttransplantation follow-up period ranged from 1.4 to 4.4 years (average, 2.6 years). Five patients (83%) were symptomatic with nausea, vomiting, and postprandial abdominal distension. Solid phase gastric emptying was delayed in all five patients with mean gastric retention of 93% at 2 hours (normal < 50%). Patients generally did not respond to prokinetic agents. Four patients required pyloroplasty with J tube placement for symptom control, nutrition, and delivery of immunosuppressive medication. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of symptomatic gastroparesis in patients after HLT. The gastroparesis is severe and often resistant to prokinetic agents.

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

4.4
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