| Literature DB >> 25881090 |
Zhihua Liu1,2, Chao Li3, Meijin Huang4, Chao Tong5, Xingwei Zhang6, Lei Wang7, Hui Peng8, Ping Lan9, Peng Zhang10, Nanqi Huang11, Junsheng Peng12, Xiaojian Wu13, Yanxing Luo14, Huanlong Qin15, Liang Kang16, Jianping Wang17.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal liver metastases (CLM) occur frequently and postoperative intestinal infection is a common complication. Our previous study showed that probiotics could decrease the rate of infectious complications after colectomy for colorectal cancer. To determine the effects of the perioperative administration of probiotics on serum zonulin levels which is a marker of intestinal permeability and the subsequent impact on postoperative infectious complications in patients with CLM.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25881090 PMCID: PMC4374379 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-015-0260-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Gastroenterol ISSN: 1471-230X Impact factor: 3.067
Figure 1Flow chart of the randomization procedure used to enroll patients in the study.
Baseline of characteristics of the patients with colorectal liver metastases undergoing surgery at hospital admission in the study (Intention-to-treat)
| Index | Control group (n = 68) | PRO group (n = 66) |
|---|---|---|
| Sex (Male/Female) | 35/33 | 35/31 |
| Age (Year) | 60.16 ± 16.20 | 65.62 ± 18.18 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.06 ± 5.26 | 22.28 ± 3.66 |
| Location of tumor | ||
| ascending colon | 15 | 15 |
| Transverse colon | 6 | 5 |
| Descending colon | 12 | 16 |
| Sigmoid colon | 15 | 11 |
| Rectum | 20 | 19 |
| Time between onset of symptoms and hospital admission (d) | 50.28 ± 16.62 | 55.12 ± 18.26 |
| Preoperative albumin (g/dL) | 38.26 ± 8.56 | 36.98 ± 6.96 |
| Preoperative Hb (g/L) | 126.86 ± 32.06 | 116.22 ± 36.68 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 1.26 ± 0.28 | 1.20 ± 0.62 |
| Operative time (min) | 186.28 ± 56.36 | 199.82 ± 55.98 |
| Intra-operative blood loss (ml) | 336.26 ± 182.68 | 352.56 ± 169.26 |
| Transfusion during operation (ml) | 308.12 ± 120.66 | 329.16 ± 130.58 |
| Usage of supplemental albumin postoperation (g) | 22.38 ± 16.36 | 28.12 ± 20.98 |
| Preoperation prepared time (d) | 6.12 ± 3.52 | 6.68 ± 2.98 |
| Metronidazole (n) | 68 | 66 |
| Penicillin (n) | 30 | 33 |
| Ceftriaxone (n) | 38 | 33 |
| ALT (U/L) | 35.68 ± 15.26 | 32.62 ± 18.86 |
| AST (U/L) | 29.68 ± 16.56 | 28.22 ± 18.86 |
BMI, body mass index; Hb, hemoglobin; ALT, alanine transarninase (normal value, 0–40 U/L); AST, aspartate aminotransferase (normal value, 0–40 U/L).
There were no significant differences about the characteristics between the two groups.
Quantitative data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Numerical data were compared by t test and nominal data by Pearson χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test between groups.
Comparison of postoperative outcomes between probiotics and control (Intention-to-treat)
| Outcomes | Intention-to-treat | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Control (n = 68) | PRO (n = 66) | P Value | |
| Septicemia incidence (%) | 88 (60/68) | 59 (39/66) | 0.008 |
| ALT (U/L) | 56.20 ± 18.16 | 36.28 ± 18.92 | <0.001 |
| AST (U/L) | 45.62 ± 22.68 | 36.18 ± 21.52 | 0.015 |
| Intro-abdominal drainage time (d) | 4.2 ± 1.6 | 4.6 ± 1.8 | 0.176 |
| Incision infection (%) | 12 (8/68) | 9 (6/66) | 0.779 |
| Central lines infection (%) | 9 (6/68) | 11 (7/66) | 0.777 |
| Pneumonia infection (%) | 12 (8/68) | 9 (6/66) | 0.097 |
| Urinary infection (%) | 13 (9/68) | 2 (1/66) | 0.017 |
| First defecation time (d) | 3.6 ± 1.8 | 2.8 ± 1.6 | 0.007 |
| Diarrhea incidence (%) | 46 (31/68) | 24 (16/66) | 0.012 |
| Urinary catheters time (d) | 7.1 ± 2.6 | 6.6 ± 2.8 | 0.286 |
| Abdominal cramping (%) | 49 (33/68) | 23 (15/66) | 0.017 |
| Abdominal distension (%) | 51 (35/68) | 33 (22/66) | 0.038 |
| Intake time of fluid diet (d) | 3.6 ± 1.2 | 3.2 ± 1.8 | 0.131 |
| Intake time of solid diet (d) | 5.2 ± 1.6 | 4.9 ± 1.6 | 0.280 |
| Side effects of probiotic use | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Duration of postoperative pyrexia (>38.5°C) (d) | 6.98 ± 2.22 | 6.02 ± 1.68 | 0.006 |
| Hypoalbuminemia (%) | 47 (32/68) | 27 (18/66) | 0.021 |
| Cumulative duration of antibiotic therapy | 7.56 ± 2.26 | 6.22 ± 1.96 | <0.001 |
| Postoperative hospital stay | 12.96 ± 3.06 | 11.26 ± 2.52 | <0.001 |
| Hospital charge (Yuan) | 58262.36 ± 10262.36 | 52261.16 ± 12168.28 | 0.002 |
| Death case | 0 | 0 | N/A |
| Serum zonulin (ng/mg protein) | 1.36 ± 0.50 | 0.42 ± 0.36 | <0.001 |
ALT, alanine transarninase (normal value, 0–40 U/L); AST, aspartate aminotransferase (normal value, 0–40 U/L).
Comparison of serum zonulin with the postoperative infectious complications between probiotics and control the patients with normal intestinal barrier function (Intention-to-treat)
| Outcomes | Intention-to-treat | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Control (n = 30) | PRO (n = 30) | P Value | |
|
| 0.72 ± 0.26 | 0.51 ± 0.29 | 0.004 |
|
| |||
| Total | 87 (26/30) | 50 (15/30) | 0.005 |
| HZ | 95 (19/20) | 66 (10/15) | 0.064 |
| LZ | 70 (7/10) | 33 (5/15) | 0.111 |
| HZ vs. LZ | HZ vs LZ (83% vs 48%), P = 0.006 | ||
| Correlation between septicemia and zonulin, r = 0.613, P < 0.001 | |||
|
| |||
| Total | 20 (6/30) | 0 (0/30) | 0.024 |
| HZ | 15 (3/20) | 0 (0/15) | 0.244 |
| LZ | 30 (3/10) | 0 (0/15) | 0.052 |
| HZ vs. LZ | HZ vs LZ (9% vs 12%), P = 0.686 | ||
|
| |||
| Total | 60 (18/30) | 27 (8/30) | 0.018 |
| HZ | 50 (10/20) | 27 (4/15) | 0.296 |
| LZ | 80 (8/10) | 27 (4/15) | 0.015 |
| HZ vs. LZ | HZ vs LZ (40% vs 48%), P = 0.603 | ||
|
| |||
| Total | 6.99 ± 2.38 | 5.49 ± 3.21 | 0.044 |
| HZ | 7.97 ± 1.77 (n = 20) | 8.02 ± 0.87 (n = 15) | 0.927 |
| LZ | 5.01 ± 2.27 (n = 10) | 2.95 ± 2.61 (n = 15) | 0.054 |
| HZ vs. LZ | HZ vs LZ (7.99 ± 1.43 vs 3.78 ± 2.64), P < 0.001 | ||
|
| |||
| Total | 7.17 ± 1.60 | 6.13 ± 1.72 | 0.019 |
| HZ | 7.90 ± 1.21 (n = 20) | 7.47 ± 1.19 (n = 15) | 0.298 |
| LZ | 5.70 ± 1.25 (n = 10) | 4.80 ± 0.94 (n = 15) | 0.052 |
| HZ vs. LZ | HZ vs LZ (7.71 ± 1.20 vs 5.16 ± 1.14), P < 0.001 | ||
|
| |||
| Total | 12.87 ± 3.01 | 11.33 ± 2.22 | 0.029 |
| HZ | 14.15 ± 2.64 (n = 20) | 13.13 ± 1.60 (n = 15) | 0.197 |
| LZ | 10.30 ± 1.89 (n = 10) | 9.53 ± 0.83 (n = 15) | 0.177 |
| HZ vs. LZ | HZ vs LZ (13.71 ± 2.28 vs 9.84 ± 1.38), P < 0.001 | ||
|
| 60196.12 ± 6532.16 | 53628.22 ± 6513.28 | <0.001 |
HZ, high serum zonulin (≥0.6 ng/mg protein); LZ, low serum zonulin (<0.6 ng/mg protein); total = HZ + LZ; NS, No significance.
Numerical data between groups were compared by the t-test and nominal data by Pearson χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test.
HZ vs LZ compares these subgroups without regard to treatment.
There was also a significant correlation between zonulin and duration of postoperative pyrexia (r = 0.919, p < 0.001), cumulative duration of antibiotic therapy and zonulin (r = 0.936, p < 0.001), and postoperative hospital stay (r = 0.911, p < 0.001).
Figure 2Probiotics lowered the postoperative bacterial translocation and endotoxin (Intention-to-treat analysis). PRO effectively decreased the plasma concentration of endotoxin in patients of colorectal liver metastases with normal postoperative intestinal barrier function, compared with the control group (n = 30 for control group and n = 30 for PRO group). Black bar represents the control group, and gray bar represents the PRO group. * (Control) vs. Preoperative, P < 0.05; # (PRO) vs. Preoperative, P < 0.05; * vs. #, P < 0.05. Numerical data are expressed as the means ± standard deviation, and compared by the t-test between groups. Plasma endotoxin was determined preoperatively (hospital admission day), and postoperatively (10 d treatment after surgery).
Culture of bacterial culture of blood, central lines and sputum (Intention-to-treat)
| Sample | Control group (n = 30) | PRO group (n = 30) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterium | Blood | Central lines | sputum | Blood | Central lines | sputum |
|
| 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Bacterial positive patient | 9 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Total | 16 | 7 | ||||
The total bacterial positive rate in control group was 53.33% (16 in 30 patients); in PRO group 23.33% (7 in 30 patients), P = 0.033; bacterial positive rate of the blood in the control group was 30.00% (9 in 30 patients), while in PRO group was 6.67% (2 in 30 patients), P = 0.042.
Nominal data by Pearson χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test between groups.
Figure 3Schematic diagram for the clinical regulatory pathway of probiotics.