RESUMEN
Objective To compare the differences in the efficacy of Bifidobacterium tetravaccine tablets.Bifidobacterium triple viable capsules and live Bacillus licheniformis capsule in the treatment of persistent and chronic diarrhea.Methods From September 2015 to June 2016,a total of 484 outpatients with persistent and chronic diarrhea were enrolled and divided into observation group (treated with Bifidobacterium tetravaccine tablets) and control group (treated with the combination of Bifidobacterium triple viable capsules and live Bacillus licheniformis capsule).Before and after treatment,the frequency of defecation and the characters of stool were observed and the differences in the treatment efficacy in persistent and chronic diarrhea between two groups were compared.Paired t test and Chi square test were used to compare the difference before and after treatment in each group,and independent sample t test was used for comparison between groups.Results There were a total of 256 patients in the observation group (four cases lost and 256 cases were completed).Meanwhile there were 228 patients in the control group (30 cases lost and 228 cases completed).In the observation group,after treatment the frequency of defecation was (2.13±1.06) times,which was less than that before treatment ((3.83±0.95) times),and the difference was statistically significant (t=29.149,P＜0.01).In the control group,after treatment the frequency of defecation was (2.19 ± 1.06) times,which was less than that before treatment ((3.87 ±0.98) times),and the difference was statistically significant(t =27.800,P＜0.01).There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of defecation before and after treatment between two groups (t=-0.460 and-0.662,both P＞0.05).Furthermore there was also no statistically significant difference in the rate of normal bowel movements between observation group and treatment group after treatment (50.8％(130/256) vs 57.9％(132/228;x2=2.458,P=0.117).There was no significant difference in effective rate (64.8％(166/256) vs 69.7％ (159/228) and excellence rate (47.7％ (122/256) vs 51.3％ (117/228)) between two groups (P=0.253 and 0.422);besides,no severe adverse events were reported.Conclusion In the aspect of improving of times of defecation and characters of stool in patients with persistent and chronic diarrhea,single medication of multi bacteria strains Bifidobacterium tetravaccine tablets has the same satisfied efficacy and good safety as the combination of Bifidobacterium triple viable capsules and live Bacillus licheniformis capsule.
RESUMEN
Objective To compare the effectiveness of lactulose oral solution combined with PEG-4000 electrolyte lavage solution with PEG-4000 electrolyte lavage solution only in colonoscopy preparation.Methods A total of 121 patients preparing for colonoscopy were randomly divided into two groups:61 patients in lactulose oral solution combined with PEG-4000 electrolyte lavage solution group (the experimental group =group A),and 60 patients in PEG-4000 electrolyte lavage solution group(the control group =group B).During the colonoscopy,the endoscopist blindly scored the cleanness of the bowel,and recorded any adverse event to assess the safety.Results According to the Boston bowel preparation scale,the experimental group scored 7.07 ±0.79,and the control group scored 6.18 ± 1.03,which showed significant significance(P =0.000).There was no significant difference in the time of accessing rectum between the two groups[(8.80 ± 1.74) min VS(9.22 ± 1.94) min,P =0.220].Polyp detection rate in group A was higher than that in group B,with no significant difference (22.95％ VS 15.00％,P ＞ 0.05).The small polyp (≤0.5 cm)detection rate in group A was higher than that in group B with significant significance(P =0.038).No adverse event was recorded in either group.Conclusion The bowel preparation with lactulose oral solution combined with PEG-4000 electrolyte lavage solution is more effective than that with PEG-4000 electrolyte lavage solution alone.It will enhance the detection rate of small polyps with no evident adverse reactions.