Comparison of the effects of colonic electrical stimulation and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation in a canine model of constipation
单位:[1]Department of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing China[2]Department of Gastroenterology, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China[3]Department of Gastroenterology, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China[4]Graduate School of Peking Union Medical College and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China[5]Department of Geriatrics, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing China[6]Peking University China-Japan Friendship School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing China
Objective The aim of this study was to compare the effects of colonic electrical stimulation (CES) and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation and to verify the safety of CES in a canine model of constipation. Methods Eight beagles received CES implantation and induction drugs for slow transit constipation (STC). In the STC model, the gastrointestinal transit time (GITT), colonic transit time (CTT), stool frequency and stool consistency were assessed to compare the effects of CES and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation. The histocompatibility of the implantable device was evaluated. Results The individualized parameters for CES varied greatly among the animals, and the GITTs were not significantly shortened by CES or prucalopride; however, both the CES and prucalopride treatment significantly accelerated CTT and improved stool consistency compared with sham stimulation. CES treatment also resulted in significantly higher stool frequency than prucalopride treatment, which did not significantly change the stool frequency. No severe inflammation response was detected in the gross and microscopic appearance around the implants. Conclusion CES and prucalopride treatment may yield similar short-term effects for improving gastrointestinal transit and stool consistency, and CES outperformed prucalopride treatment in terms of defecation inducement in the short term. There were ideal levels of endurance and histocompatibility for the animals that underwent CES.
基金:
China-Japan Friendship Hospital Foundation [2019-1-QN-2]
第一作者单位:[1]Department of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing China
通讯作者:
通讯机构:[1]Department of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing China[*1]Department of Gastroenterology, China–Japan Friendship Hospital, 2nd Yinghua East Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100029, China
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
Chen Shuo,Liu Liang,Li Yanmei,et al.Comparison of the effects of colonic electrical stimulation and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation in a canine model of constipation[J].SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL of GASTROENTEROLOGY.2021,56(2):137-144.doi:10.1080/00365521.2020.1856919.
APA:
Chen, Shuo,Liu, Liang,Li, Yanmei,Li, Hailong,Sun, Xizhen...&Du, Shiyu.(2021).Comparison of the effects of colonic electrical stimulation and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation in a canine model of constipation.SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL of GASTROENTEROLOGY,56,(2)
MLA:
Chen, Shuo,et al."Comparison of the effects of colonic electrical stimulation and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation in a canine model of constipation".SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL of GASTROENTEROLOGY 56..2(2021):137-144