Comparing Impacts of Different Bowel Cleansing Agents and Oral Probiotics After Cleansing On Symptom and Microbiota: a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

Abstract Background: Sodium sulfate-based purge has shown better quality of bowel preparation than polyethylene glycol (PEG) in a large retrospective study. However, its side effects and impact to gut microbiota have not been assessed. Besides, evidence from intestinal microecology that probiotics were beneficial to individuals who received bowel preparation is still lacking. The aims are to evaluate the side effects and microecological impact of two bowel cleansing agents (PEG and mirabilite), as well as the regulating effect of probiotics on microecosystem perturbed by bowel preparation.Results: Mirabilite preparation appeared superior to PEG preparation in terms of side effects, consumed time and volume of solutions. Quantitative PCR results showed that the recovery rate of total microbial load in mirabilite group was faster than that in PEG group. 16S rRNA sequencing showed that there were no significant differences in effects of two bowel cleansing agents on multiple microbiota diversity metrics. And both laxatives may affect the relative abundance of core microbiota until 28 days after bowel preparation. Probiotics supplementation was beneficial to recovery of perturbed microecosystem and the maintenance of homeostasis in the gut according to our results. Moreover, probiotics supplementation relieved abdominal symptoms and few individual events induced by bowel preparation during long-term follow-up.Conclusions: Mirabilite could be an optimal bowel cleansing agent for healthy people and can be applied broadly. Besides, probiotics are suggested to administrate after bowel cleansing as it brings multiple benefits in our study.

Download Full-text

Can the fistula arm be used to lift heavy items? Six-pound dumbbells versus handgrip exercise in a 6-month follow-up secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

The Journal of Vascular Access ◽

10.1177/1129729819894090 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (5) ◽

pp. 602-608

Author(s):

Ya-wen Mo ◽

Li Song ◽

Jing-ya Huang ◽

Chun-yan Sun ◽

Li-fang Zhou ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Primary Patency ◽

Arteriovenous Fistulas ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Long Term Follow Up

Introduction: Patients with arteriovenous fistulas are advised to avoid carrying heavy objects draped over the fistula arm. Awareness gradually leads to overprotection and a reduction in the use of the fistula arm. However, restricting motion in the fistula arm leads to decreased quality of life and diminished muscle strength. The current safety recommendations regarding lifting heavy items with the fistula arm are primarily based on experience. Few studies have provided evidence clarifying the scope of safe activity and the influence of load bearing on the continued patency of arteriovenous fistulas. Methods: This prospective observation was based on a long-term follow-up study in which 86 hemodialysis recipients with arteriovenous fistulas were randomized into either a dumbbell group or a handgrip group. The dumbbell group exercised with 6-lb dumbbells, while the handgrip group squeezed rubber balls. Postintervention primary patency and adverse events at the 6-month follow-up were analyzed. Results: No significant difference in postintervention primary patency was observed between the dumbbell group and the handgrip group at 6 months (97.4% vs 95.0%). There were two participants with high-flow fistulas in the dumbbell group and three in the handgrip group, with no significant difference between the two groups (5.3% vs 7.5%). In both groups, there were no other adverse events reported regarding cardiac failure, aneurysm, puncture site hematoma, or hemorrhage. Conclusion: Hemodialysis patients can safely use their fistula arm to lift objects weighing less than 6 lb, which encourages increased motion and helps preserve the functionality of the fistula arm.

Download Full-text

Long term follow-up in quality of life after mitral valve surgery

The Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon ◽

10.1055/s-0031-1297801 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 60 (S 01) ◽

Author(s):

I Kammerer ◽

M Höhn ◽

AH Kiessling ◽

S Becker ◽

FU Sack

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Mitral Valve ◽

Mitral Valve Surgery ◽

Valve Surgery ◽

Long Term Follow Up

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of Long-term follow-up after laser vision correction in physicians: quality of life and patient satisfaction.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.718293989.793492928 ◽

2014 ◽

Author(s):

Karl Stonecipher

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Patient Satisfaction ◽

Vision Correction ◽

Long Term Follow Up ◽

Laser Vision

Download Full-text

Physiological Pacing: A New Road to Future

Indian Journal of Clinical Cardiology ◽

10.1177/2632463620978045 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 263246362097804

Author(s):

Vanita Arora ◽

Pawan Suri

Keyword(s):

Side Effects ◽

Fibrous Tissue ◽

Cardiac Pacing ◽

His Bundle ◽

Anatomy And Physiology ◽

Long Term Follow Up ◽

Pacing Lead ◽

The Right

Anatomy and physiology are the basis of human body functioning and as we have progressed in management of various diseases, we have understood that physiological intervention is always better than an anatomical one. For more than 50 years, a standard approach to permanent cardiac pacing has been an anatomical placement of transvenous pacing lead at the right ventricular apex with a proven benefit of restoring the rhythm. However, the resultant ventricular dyssynchrony on the long-term follow-up in patients requiring more than 40% ventricular pacing led to untoward side effects in the form of heart failure and arrhythmias. To counter such adverse side effects, a need for physiological cardiac pacing wherein the electrical impulse be transmitted directly through the normal conduction system was sought. His bundle pacing (HBP) with an intriguing alternative of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is aimed at restoring such physiological activation of ventricles. HBP is safe, efficacious, and feasible; however, localization and placement of a pacing lead at the His bundle is challenging with existing transvenous systems due to its small anatomic size, surrounding fibrous tissue, long-learning curve, and the concern remains about lead dislodgement and progressive electrical block distal to the HBP lead. In this article, we aim to take the reader through the challenging journey of HBP with focus upon the hardware and technique, selective versus nonselective HBP, indications and potential disadvantages, and finally the future prospects.

Download Full-text