| Literature DB >> 30545398 |
Chao Zhang1,2,3,4,5, Wenhao Zhang1,2,3,4,5, Jie Zhang1,2,3,4,5, Yingli Jing1,3,4,5,6, Mingliang Yang1,2,3,4,5, Liangjie Du1,2,3,4,5, Feng Gao1,2,3,4,5, Huiming Gong1,2,3,4,5, Liang Chen1,2,3,4,5, Jun Li1,2,3,4,5, Hongwei Liu1,2,3,4,5, Chuan Qin1,2,3,4,5, Yanmei Jia1,2,3,4,5, Jiali Qiao1,2,3,4,5, Bo Wei1,3,4,5,7, Yan Yu1,3,4,5,6, Hongjun Zhou1,3,4,5,7, Zhizhong Liu1,3,4,5,8, Degang Yang9,10,11,12,13, Jianjun Li14,15,16,17,18,19.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurogenic bowel dysfunction (NBD) is a major physical and psychological problem in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), and gut dysbiosis is commonly occurs in SCI. Here, we document neurogenic bowel management of male patients with chronic traumatic complete SCI in our centre and perform comparative analysis of the gut microbiota between our patients and healthy males.Entities:
Keywords: Chronic traumatic complete SCI; Gut microbiota dysbiosis; NBD symptoms; Neurogenic bowel management; Serum biomarkers
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30545398 PMCID: PMC6293533 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-018-1735-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Neurogenic bowel management table in male patients with chronic traumatic complete SCI
| SCI-male | SCI-cervical | SCI-thoracic and lumbar | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Course | 62.5 ± 53.98 | 69.4 ± 52.72 | 56.5 ± 54.36 | 0.449 |
| NBD scores | 10.02 ± 5.11 | 11.17 ± 5.16 | 8.7 ± 4.72 | 0.119 |
| Defecation time | 35.33 ± 16.766 | 41.789 ± 19.29 | 30 ± 13.94 | 0.026 |
| Pathogenesis | Traffic accident | Traffic accident | Traffic accident | |
| Frequency of bowel care | Once a day | Once daily | Once daily | |
| Main techniques for faecal evacuation | Suppository | Suppository | Suppository | |
| Supplementary interventions | Abdominal massage | Abdominal massage | Abdominal massage | |
| Timing of bowel care | Morning | Morning | Morning | |
| Location during evacuation | Bed | Bed | Bed | |
| Degree of assistance needed | Need all help | Need all help | Need all help | |
| Abdominal discomfort | 27 (62.8%) | 12 (60%) | 15 (65.2%) | |
| Constipation | 29 (67.4%) | 14 (70%) | 15 (65.2%) | |
| Bloating symptom | 32 (74.4%) | 16 (80%) | 16 (69.6%) | |
| Flatus incontinence | 38 (88.4%) | 18 (90%) | 20 (87%) | |
| Lifestyle alteration due to NBD | Major impact | Major impact | Major impact | |
| Top 3 complication desired to be solved | Neurogenic bowel dysfunction | Neurogenic bowel dysfunction | Neurogenic bowel dysfunction |
Demographics and serum biomarkers male patients with chronic traumatic complete SCI
| SCI-male | Sci-cervical | Sci-thoracolumbar | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | 43 | 20 | 23 | |
| AGE | 39.9 ± 10.57 | 41.5 ± 8.30 | 38.5 ± 12.04 | 0.369 |
| BMI | 23.11 ± 2.876 | 23.586 ± 3.35 | 22.697 ± 2.31 | < 0.001 |
| ALT | 26.2 ± 19.303 | 23.09 ± 11.04 | 28.16 ± 24.132 | 0.487 |
| AST | 21 ± 9.8 | 21 ± 9.32 | 22 ± 10.2 | 0.796 |
| GLU | 5.266 ± 1.964 | 5.766 ± 2.68 | 4.83 ± 0.747 | 0.125 |
| TG | 1.928 ± 1.207 | 2.0325 ± 1.259 | 1.837 ± 1.15 | 0.607 |
| TCHO | 4.217 ± 1.005 | 4.072 ± 1.067 | 4.34 ± 0.93 | 0.39 |
| HDL | 0.917 ± 0.163 | 0.846 ± 0.137 | 0.979 ± 0.159 | 0.007 |
| LDL | 2.617 ± 0.701 | 2.68 ± 0.658 | 2.69 ± 0.74 | 0.965 |
| UREA | 4.403 ± 1.14 | 3.956 ± 0.975 | 4.791 ± 1.13 | 0.016 |
| CR | 60.7 ± 11.8 | 61.2 ± 11 | 60.3 ± 12.3 | 0.815 |
| UA | 378.1 ± 64.93 | 380.75 ± 60.99 | 375.7 ± 68.08 | 0.806 |
| CRP | 7.78 ± 10.31 | 11.2 ± 13.45 | 4.79 ± 4.674 | 0.042 |
Demographics and serum biomarkers between male healthy and patients with chronic traumatic complete SCI
| Health male | SCI-male | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 23 | 43 | |
| AGE | 40 ± 9.03 | 39.9 ± 10.57 | 0.998 |
| BMI | 24.8 ± 2.677 | 23.11 ± 2.876 | 0.022 |
| ALT | 26.791 ± 16.367 | 26.2 ± 19.303 | 0.903 |
| AST | 23.848 ± 17.097 | 21 ± 9.8 | 0.429 |
| GLU | 4.343 ± 0.528 | 5.266 ± 1.964 | 0.033 |
| TG | 1.436 ± 1.319 | 1.928 ± 1.207 | 0.137 |
| TCHO | 3.695 ± 0.794 | 4.217 ± 1.005 | 0.038 |
| HDL | 0.9152 ± 0.2091 | 0.917 ± 0.163 | 0.974 |
| LDL | 2.177 ± 0.596 | 2.617 ± 0.701 | 0.005 |
| UREA | 4.416 ± 1.224 | 4.403 ± 1.14 | 0.966 |
| CR | 64.3 ± 12.701 | 60.7 ± 11.8 | 0.265 |
| UA | 309 ± 69.81 | 378.1 ± 64.93 | 0.001 |
Fig. 1Diversity and taxonomic analysis in the healthy male and SCI groups. a At the genus level, the Simpson index showed a significant difference between the healthy male and SCI groups (p = 0.03635). b Plot of principal coordinate analysis (PCA) on the phylum level of the faecal microbiota based on the unweighted UniFrac metric in healthy male and SCI groups. STAMP analysis at the phylum and genus levels showed differences between the healthy male and SCI groups. Two of the top 15 phyla (c) and 9 of the top 15 genera (d) showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the two groups (Welch’s t-test)
Fig. 2STAMP analysis of NBD symptoms. a STAMP analysis showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the two groups (Welch’s t-test) in Bifidobacterium at the genus level. b STAMP analysis showed that Megamonas was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the bloating group and that Alistipes was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in the without bloating group at the genus level
Fig. 3Correlation heatmap analysis of different environmental factors on the community composition of the healthy male and SCI groups at the phylum level (a) and genus level (b)
Fig. 4Diversity and taxonomic analysis in the healthy male, quadriplegia (PU) and paraplegia (PL) SCI groups. a Sobs index of rarefaction curves for the healthy male, quadriplegia and paraplegia groups of samples based on OTUs detected using a similarity threshold of 97%. b Significant differences in the genus chao index (b) and Simpson index (c) were observed between the three populations (p < 0.05). d ANOSIM/Adonis of beta-diversity analysis revealed significant differences in the structure of the gut microbiota among the three groups (p = 0.001, r2 = 0.233) at the phylum level. e PLS-DA revealed that there were significant differences in bacterial community composition between the three groups at the OTU, phylum and genus levels (PU and PL represent patients with quadriplegia and paraplegia, respectively)
Fig. 5STAMP analysis indicated significant differences at the phylum (a) and genus (b–h) levels between the three groups
Fig. 6Correlation heatmap analysis of different environmental factors on the community composition of the quadriplegia and paraplegia groups at the phylum level (a) and genus level (b)