Effects of fecal microbiota transplantation in different routes on the clinical efficacy of slow transit constipation
10.3760/cma.j.cn.441530-20200415-00212
- VernacularTitle:不同移植途径的菌群移植对慢传输型便秘临床疗效的影响
- Author:
Hongliang TIAN
1
;
Qiyi CHEN
;
Bo YANG
;
Chunlian MA
;
Zhiliang LIN
;
Xueying ZHANG
;
Shailan ZHOU
;
Huanlong QIN
;
Ning LI
Author Information
1. 同济大学附属第十人民医院结直肠病专科 肠道微生态治疗中心 200072
- Keywords:
Fecal microbiota transplantation;
Slow transit constipation;
Transplantation routes
- From:
Chinese Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery
2020;23(Z1):63-68
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in the different route administration for slow transit constipation (STC).Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted. The clinical data of 270 STC patients who voluntarily received FMT treatment in the Tenth People's Hospital of Tongji University from May 2018 to May 2019 were collected. Non-relative healthy adult standard donors were applied. The treatment routes of bacterial flora transplantation included nasojejunal tube (nasal enteral tube group, 120 cases), oral enterobacterial capsule treatment (oral capsule group, 120 cases), and colonoscopy infusion (colonoscopy group, 30 cases). The efficacy and safety of treatment among the three groups were compared.Results:Transplanted bacteria of three groups were extracted from 100 g of fresh feces. All the patients successfully completed the transplantation. The waiting time for the nasal enteral tube group, oral capsule group and colonoscopy group was (1.5±0.5) d, (0.4±0.3) d and (3.6±0.8) d respectively; the cost of establishing the transplantation path was (495±20) yuan, (25±10) yuan and (1420±45) yuan respectively, whose differences were statistically significant ( F=9.210, P=0.03; F=10.600, P=0.01). The clinical improvement rates at 1 month after FMT treatment in the nasojejunal tube group, oral capsule group and colonoscopy group were 74.2% (89/120), 60.0% (72/120) and 53.3% (16/30) respectively, whose difference was statistically significant (χ 2=5.990, P<0.05). The clinical improvement rates at 3 months after treatment were 71.1% (69/97), 53.6% (45/84), and 44.0% (11/25) respectively, whose difference was statistically significant (χ 2=7.620, P<0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions in the colonoscopy group was 76.7% (23/30), which was higher than that in the nasal nasojejunal group (39.2%, 47/120) and oral capsule group (21.7%, 26/120). The most common adverse reactions in the nasojejunal tube group, oral capsule group and colonoscopy group were respiratory discomfort (17.5%, 21/120), nausea and vomiting (10.0%, 12/120), and diarrhea (36.7%, 11/30). During the 3-month follow-up after treatment, no FMT-related adverse reactions were reported. Conclusions:The nasojejunal tube route has stable clinical efficacy and operability, while the oral capsule route has shorter waiting time and less cost. However, the adverse reactions caused by different transplantation methods are different, thus personalized transplantation method should be recommended.
