检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:Chun-Chun Yang Sui Zhang Rui Zhang Ya-Nan Zhao Da-Wei Yang Ming-Yue Yang Li-Jing Huang
机构地区:[1]Department of Gastroenterology,The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Shijiazhuang 050000,Hebei Province,China [2]Department of Hepatic,The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Shijiazhuang 050000,Hebei Province,China [3]Department of Gastroenterology Center,The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Shijiazhuang 050000,Hebei Province,China [4]Department of Rheumatology and Immunology,The First Hospital of Hebei Medical University,Shijiazhuang 050000,Hebei Province,China
出 处:《World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery》2025年第2期173-182,共10页世界胃肠外科杂志(英文)
摘 要:BACKGROUND Ulcerative colitis(UC)is a complex inflammatory bowel disease,and its etiology and pathogenesis remain incompletely elucidated.AIM To analyze the effects of Saccharomyces boulardii in combination with sulfasalazine on intestinal microbiota and intestinal barrier function in patients with UC.METHODS A retrospective analysis of clinical data from 127 UC patients admitted to our hospital between January 2021 and January 2023 was conducted.All patients met complete inclusion and exclusion criteria.Based on the treatment interventions received,they were divided into a control group(n=63)and an observation group(n=64).Both groups of patients received routine treatment upon admission.The control group received sulfasalazine in addition to routine interventions,while the observation group received a combination of Saccharomyces boulardii on the basis of the control group’s treatment.The clinical efficacy,improvement in symptoms,modified Baron endoscopic scores,quality of life“inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire(IBDQ)”,levels of intestinal microbial indicators(such as Lactobacillus,Bifidobacterium,Enterococcus,and Escherichia coli),intestinal mucosal barrier function indicators[diamine oxidase(DAO),lipopolysaccharide(LPS),D-lactic acid(D-LA)],and adverse reaction occurrences were compared between the two groups.RESULTS(1)Clinical efficacy:The total effective rate in the control group was 79.37%,while in the observation group,it was 93.75%,significantly higher than that of the control group(P<0.05);(2)Improvement in symptoms:The observation group showed significantly lower relief time for abdominal pain,diarrhea,rectal bleeding,fever symptoms,and mucosal healing time compared to the control group(P<0.05);(3)Baron endoscopic scores and IBDQ scores:Before treatment,there was no significant difference in Baron endoscopic scores and IBDQ scores between the two groups(P>0.05).However,after treatment,the observation group showed significantly lower Baron endoscopic scores and higher IBDQ scores compared to
关 键 词:Saccharomyces boulardii SULFASALAZINE Ulcerative colitis Intestinal microbiota Intestinal barrier function IMPACT
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.28