Laura Ruiz-Campos1, Javier P Gisbert2,3, Montserrat Ysamat4, Beatriz Arau1, Carme Loras1,3, Maria Esteve1,3, Fernando Fernández-Bañares1,3. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitari Mutua Terrassa, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IIS-IP), Madrid, Spain. 3. Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBERehd), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. 4. Centre de Tecnologia Diagnòstica, Hospital Universitari Mútua Terrassa-Ascires, Terrassa, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A limited number of small-sized studies suggest that bile acid diarrhoea is frequent in patients with chronic watery diarrhoea and previous cholecystectomy. AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of bile acid diarrhoea in patients with chronic watery diarrhoea and previous cholecystectomy, and their response to colestyramine, including a new consecutive series of patients. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to January 2018. Selected studies included patients with previous cholecystectomy and chronic watery diarrhoea assessed by the 23-seleno-25-homotaurocholic acid (SeHCAT) test. We calculated the pooled rate of bile acid diarrhoea using the inverse double arcsine square root method. Additionally, the medical records of 291 consecutive patients with chronic watery diarrhoea in whom a SeHCAT test was performed were retrospectively reviewed and 74 with previous cholecystectomy were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The search strategy identified eight relevant studies, which, together with the data of the present series, comprise 361 individuals. The pooled bile acid diarrhoea rate was 70% (95% CI 56%-82%), and was similar when using cut-offs of 10% or 15%. There was substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 84%). Five studies comprising 166 patients evaluated the effect of colestyramine in patients with bile acid diarrhoea. The pooled colestyramine response rate was 79% (95% CI 63%-91%) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 73%). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients with chronic watery diarrhoea and previous cholecystectomy have bile acid diarrhoea. Response to colestyramine in these patients is good.
BACKGROUND: A limited number of small-sized studies suggest that bile acid diarrhoea is frequent in patients with chronic watery diarrhoea and previous cholecystectomy. AIM: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of bile acid diarrhoea in patients with chronic watery diarrhoea and previous cholecystectomy, and their response to colestyramine, including a new consecutive series of patients. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched up to January 2018. Selected studies included patients with previous cholecystectomy and chronic watery diarrhoea assessed by the 23-seleno-25-homotaurocholic acid (SeHCAT) test. We calculated the pooled rate of bile acid diarrhoea using the inverse double arcsine square root method. Additionally, the medical records of 291 consecutive patients with chronic watery diarrhoea in whom a SeHCAT test was performed were retrospectively reviewed and 74 with previous cholecystectomy were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The search strategy identified eight relevant studies, which, together with the data of the present series, comprise 361 individuals. The pooled bile acid diarrhoea rate was 70% (95% CI 56%-82%), and was similar when using cut-offs of 10% or 15%. There was substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 84%). Five studies comprising 166 patients evaluated the effect of colestyramine in patients with bile acid diarrhoea. The pooled colestyramine response rate was 79% (95% CI 63%-91%) with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 73%). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients with chronic watery diarrhoea and previous cholecystectomy have bile acid diarrhoea. Response to colestyramine in these patients is good.
Authors: Edoardo Savarino; Fabiana Zingone; Brigida Barberio; Giovanni Marasco; Filiz Akyuz; Hale Akpinar; Oana Barboi; Giorgia Bodini; Serhat Bor; Giuseppe Chiarioni; Gheorghe Cristian; Maura Corsetti; Antonio Di Sabatino; Anca Mirela Dimitriu; Vasile Drug; Dan L Dumitrascu; Alexander C Ford; Goran Hauser; Radislav Nakov; Nisha Patel; Daniel Pohl; Cătălin Sfarti; Jordi Serra; Magnus Simrén; Alina Suciu; Jan Tack; Murat Toruner; Julian Walters; Cesare Cremon; Giovanni Barbara Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2022-06-13 Impact factor: 6.866
Authors: Ivan Lyutakov; Francesco Ursini; Plamen Penchev; Giacomo Caio; Antonio Carroccio; Umberto Volta; Roberto De Giorgio Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Virginia Flores; Helena Martínez-Lozano; Federico Bighelli; Javier Orcajo; Javier García-Lledó; Juan Carlos Alonso-Farto; Luis Menchén Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2021-02-09 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Mary E Phillips; Andrew D Hopper; John S Leeds; Keith J Roberts; Laura McGeeney; Sinead N Duggan; Rajesh Kumar Journal: BMJ Open Gastroenterol Date: 2021-06