4.5 Article

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of polyethylene glycol effects on fasting and postprandial rectal sensitivity and symptoms in hypersensitive constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome

期刊

COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 1131-1138

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2009.01990.x

关键词

Polyethylene glycol; Sensation; irritable bowel syndrome; constipation; barostat; randomized controlled trials

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim To assess the effect of polyethylene glycol 3350 (PEG) on fasting and postprandial (PP) perception of rectal distension and symptoms in hypersensitive constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C). Methods Forty-two patients meeting Rome II criteria for IBS-C and with a pain threshold of < 32 mmHg were included in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients received either oral PEG, 3.45 g t.i.d. orally for 30 days or placebo. Rectal sensitivity was assessed before and after treatment with a barostat using the ascending method of limits, during basal and PP periods. Results No changes in fasting and PP rectal tone and thresholds for first sensation, gas sensation, urge to defecate, and pain was observed with PEG in relation to placebo. In both groups, pressure at which patients crossed the thresholds for noxious (PEG: from 28 +/- 8.8 to 22 +/- 6.9 mmHg) and non noxious (PEG: from 16 +/- 4.9 to 12 +/- 3.6 mmHg) stimuli decreased compared with pretreatment values. PEG improved consistency of faeces and showed a trend to diminish blood in faeces. PEG and placebo increased bowel movements per week (P < 0.001), and relieved symptoms without significant side-effects. Conclusions Both PEG 3350 and placebo were clinically useful in patients with IBS-C, an effect that cannot be explained by changes in rectal tone and sensation. The results support the concept that visceral sensitivity is not stable and has a heterogeneous response to drugs, and suggest the existence of a post healing hypersensitivity state.

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

4.5
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