| Literature DB >> 36188104 |
Lihong Ban1, Yongpeng Pu1, Huanyuan Huang2, Bin You3, Wei Chen1, Yanzhen Wang1.
Abstract
Gastrointestinal dysfunction (GD) is a common complication after endotoxemia, which can further aggravate the progress of infection. Acupuncture uses metal needles of different shapes and techniques to stimulate specific points on the human body, which are effective in treating various diseases, including gastrointestinal diseases. We aimed at exploring the clinical effect of acupuncture on the recovery of visceral sensation, proximal gastric compliance, and autonomic nervous function in patients with septic GD. A total of 73 sepsis with GD patients were selected using modified single section ultrasonography combined with clinical symptoms in the First People's Hospital of Lanzhou City during 2019. The participants were randomly allocated to routine-treatment (control group) and study group receiving acupuncture. The indexes before and after treatment included gastric residue, gastric dilatation, pressure and volume, gastric compliance, autonomic nerve function, APACHE II score, and infection index were measured and compared. Before treatment, there was no significant difference in the basic information of the two groups, including gastric volume and pressure, gastric residue, gastric compliance, autonomic nerve function, and APACHE II score. After treatment, the maximum gastric volume and pressure, gastric residue, and APACHE II score of the two groups were significantly improved (P < 0.05). In addition, the maximum gastric volume and pressure of the study group were significantly higher, while gastric residual, autonomic nerve function, and APACHE II were significantly lower than those of the control group (P < 0.05). However, our results showed that acupuncture did not further reduce inflammatory markers, including white blood cells, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin. To sum up, on the basis of basic treatment, the application of acupuncture can further improve the clinical symptoms of GD in patients with sepsis, enhance gastrointestinal motility, and improve autonomic nervous function, which is worthy of clinical application and promotion.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36188104 PMCID: PMC9519294 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1653290
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Figure 1Ultrasonogram of GD at different time points. (a) Before acupuncture, result of ultrasonography indicates the increased contraction area of the gastric antrum. (b) After acupuncture for two days, result of ultrasonography indicates the decreased contraction area of the gastric antrum compared with that before acupuncture treatment. (c) After acupuncture for five days, result of ultrasonography indicates that the contraction area of the gastric antrum was decreased compared with that before acupuncture treatment and was basically restored to a normal condition.
Figure 2Delayed gastric emptying (gastric residual volume) from the day before treatment to the sixth day after treatment with gastrointestinal motility drugs (control group) and acupuncture (study group). Acupuncture caused a smaller gastric residual volume. ###P < 0.001, days 0-6 vs. day -1, ∗∗P < 0.01, ∗∗∗P < 0.001, control group vs. study group.
Comparison of the initial and maximal pressure and volume between the two groups.
| Observed indexes | Control group ( | Study group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Initial pressure (mmHg) | 4.62 ± 1.06 | 6.15 ± 1.61∗ | 4.84 ± 1.24 | 8.44 ± 1.93∗,# |
| Initial volume (ml) | 302.20 ± 36.41 | 401.34 ± 56.85∗ | 297.11 ± 33.37 | 492.32 ± 54.68∗,# |
| Maximal pressure (mmHg) | 9.19 ± 1.81 | 12.51 ± 1.86∗ | 9.65 ± 1.79 | 13.69 ± 2.11∗,# |
| Maximal pressure (ml) | 425.08 ± 76.662 | 693.43 ± 80.86∗ | 433.45 ± 49.76 | 820.71 ± 77.43∗,# |
Note: ∗ meant P < 0.05 vs. before treatment; # meant P < 0.05 vs. after treatment in control group.
Comparison of symptom scores under different gastric dilatation volumes between the two groups.
| Observed indexes | Control group ( | Study group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Epigastric pain | ||||
| 200 ml | 0.94 ± 0.23 | 0.72 ± 0.45 | 0.95 ± 0.23 | 0.05 ± 0.23∗,# |
| 300 ml | 1.86 ± 0.76 | 1.06 ± 0.47∗ | 1.62 ± 0.72 | 0.62 ± 0.49∗,# |
| 400 ml | 2.42 ± 0.65 | 1.47 ± 0.65∗ | 2.27 ± 0.80 | 1.00 ± 0.08∗,# |
| Fullness | ||||
| 200 ml | 1.08 ± 0.28 | 0.97 ± 0.17 | 1.14 ± 0.35 | 0.30 ± 0.46∗,# |
| 300 ml | 1.97 ± 0.70 | 1.33 ± 0.79∗ | 1.65 ± 0.86 | 0.862 ± 0.48∗,# |
| 400 ml | 2.39 ± 0.69 | 1.89 ± 0.68∗ | 2.49 ± 0.61 | 1.32 ± 0.67∗,# |
| Nausea or vomiting | ||||
| 200 ml | 1.00 ± 0.24 | 0.67 ± 0.48 | 0.97 ± 0.29 | 0.11 ± 0.31∗,# |
| 300 ml | 1.78 ± 0.68 | 1.14 ± 0.59∗ | 1.92 ± 0.80 | 0.65 ± 0.54∗,# |
| 400 ml | 2.19 ± 0.82 | 1.44 ± 0.69∗ | 1.95 ± 0.81 | 0.97 ± 0.50∗,# |
Note: ∗ meant P < 0.05 vs. before treatment; # meant P < 0.05 vs. after treatment in control group.
Comparison of gastric compliance between the two groups.
| Before treatment | After treatment |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group ( | 45.55 ± 13.20 | 55.31 ± 13.99∗ | 3.043 | 0.0033 |
| Study group ( | 45.78 ± 14.96 | 68.45 ± 17.11∗,# | 6.067 | <0.0001 |
|
| 0.0695 | 3.587 | ||
|
| 0.9448 | 0.0006 |
Note: ∗ meant P < 0.05 vs. before treatment; # meant P < 0.05 vs. after treatment in control group.
Effect of acupuncture on autonomic nervous function in patients with septic GD.
| Observed indexes | Control group ( | Study group ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Before treatment | After treatment | Baseline | Before acupuncture | After acupuncture | |
| HF (ms2) | 615.1 ± 214.8 | 345.1 ± 132.1∗ | 299.1 ± 108.9∗ | 662.6 ± 209.9 | 357.7 ± 162.8∗ | 608.9 ± 308.0# |
| LF (ms2) | 601.0 ± 221.8 | 798.4 ± 250.7∗ | 788.7 ± 207.9∗ | 546.8 ± 248.0 | 888.1 ± 320.5∗ | 600.7 ± 168.7# |
| VLF (ms2) | 1497.1 ± 482.5 | 2038.4 ± 503.0* | 1891.2 ± 369.4* | 1401.3 ± 453.9 | 1893.4 ± 440.0* | 1459.6 ± 438.3# |
Note: ∗ meant P < 0.05 vs. baseline; # meant P < 0.05 vs. before acupuncture.
Comparison of APACHE II score, abdominal circumference, and intraperitoneal pressure between the two groups.
| Observed indexes | Control group ( | Study group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| APACHE II score | 21.08 ± 2.38 | 16.36 ± 2.69∗ | 21.16 ± 2.21 | 14.62 ± 1.46∗,# |
| Abdominal circumference (cm) | 109.62 ± 8.37 | 106.12 ± 7.82 | 109.5 ± 7.99 | 105.08 ± 7.55 |
| Intraperitoneal pressure (mmHg) | 14.66 ± 1.24 | 12.48 ± 2.11∗ | 14.87 ± 1.33 | 10.63 ± 1.62∗,# |
Note: ∗ meant P < 0.05 vs. before treatment; # meant P < 0.05 vs. after treatment in control group.
Comparison of infection indexes between the two groups.
| Observed indexes | Control group ( | Study group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| WBC (×109/l) | 14.03 ± 2.43 | 8.35 ± 0.76∗ | 14.80 ± 2.30 | 8.43 ± 0.97∗ |
| CRP (mg/l) | 127.92 ± 26.67 | 34.73 ± 10.44∗ | 127.92 ± 29.14 | 37.05 ± 12.50∗ |
| PCT (ng/ml) | 8.07 ± 1.59 | 2.02 ± 0.57∗ | 8.10 ± 1.52 | 1.94 ± 0.57∗ |
Note: ∗ meant P < 0.05 vs. before treatment.