Glucose breath test for the detection of small intestine bacterial overgrowth: Impact of diet prior to the test

Nastasia Mattio, Pierre Pradat, Christelle Machon, Anne Mialon, Sabine Roman, Charlotte Cuerq, François Mion
{"title":"Glucose breath test for the detection of small intestine bacterial overgrowth: Impact of diet prior to the test","authors":"Nastasia Mattio, Pierre Pradat, Christelle Machon, Anne Mialon, Sabine Roman, Charlotte Cuerq, François Mion","doi":"10.1111/nmo.14801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundGlucose breath test (GBT) is used for the diagnosis of small intestine bacterial overgrowth. A restrictive diet without fibers and/or fermentable food is recommended on the day before the test. The aim of our retrospective study was to evaluate the impact of two different restrictive diets on the results of GBT.MethodsA change of the pretest restrictive diet was applied in our lab on September 1, 2020. The recommended diet was a fiber‐free diet before this date, and a fiber‐free diet plus restriction of all fermentable food afterward. We thus compared the results of GBT performed before (group A) and after (group B) this pretest diet modification. Demographics, reasons to perform GBT, digestive symptoms, and hydrogen and methane baseline values and variations after glucose ingestion were compared between the two groups.Key Results269 patients underwent GBT in group A, and 316 patients in group B. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics. Methane and hydrogen baseline values were significantly higher in group A (respectively 14 [18] vs. 8 [14] ppm, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.01 and 11 [14] vs. 6 [8] ppm, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.01). The percentage of positive tests was higher in group A for methane (43% vs. 28%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05), and for hydrogen (18% vs. 12%, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.03).Conclusion &amp; InferencesThis retrospective study suggests the importance of the restrictive diet prior to GBT. A strict limitation of fibers and fermentable food decreased hydrogen and methane baseline values, and the prevalence of positive GBT. Thus a strict restrictive diet should be recommended on the day before the test, in order to limit the impact of food on hydrogen and methane breath levels, and possibly improve the diagnosis quality of GBT.","PeriodicalId":19104,"journal":{"name":"Neurogastroenterology & Motility","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurogastroenterology & Motility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14801","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundGlucose breath test (GBT) is used for the diagnosis of small intestine bacterial overgrowth. A restrictive diet without fibers and/or fermentable food is recommended on the day before the test. The aim of our retrospective study was to evaluate the impact of two different restrictive diets on the results of GBT.MethodsA change of the pretest restrictive diet was applied in our lab on September 1, 2020. The recommended diet was a fiber‐free diet before this date, and a fiber‐free diet plus restriction of all fermentable food afterward. We thus compared the results of GBT performed before (group A) and after (group B) this pretest diet modification. Demographics, reasons to perform GBT, digestive symptoms, and hydrogen and methane baseline values and variations after glucose ingestion were compared between the two groups.Key Results269 patients underwent GBT in group A, and 316 patients in group B. The two groups were comparable in terms of demographics. Methane and hydrogen baseline values were significantly higher in group A (respectively 14 [18] vs. 8 [14] ppm, p < 0.01 and 11 [14] vs. 6 [8] ppm, p < 0.01). The percentage of positive tests was higher in group A for methane (43% vs. 28%, p < 0.05), and for hydrogen (18% vs. 12%, p = 0.03).Conclusion & InferencesThis retrospective study suggests the importance of the restrictive diet prior to GBT. A strict limitation of fibers and fermentable food decreased hydrogen and methane baseline values, and the prevalence of positive GBT. Thus a strict restrictive diet should be recommended on the day before the test, in order to limit the impact of food on hydrogen and methane breath levels, and possibly improve the diagnosis quality of GBT.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于检测小肠细菌过度生长的葡萄糖呼气试验:测试前饮食的影响
背景葡萄糖呼气试验(GBT)用于诊断小肠细菌过度生长。建议在测试前一天限制饮食,不吃纤维和/或可发酵食物。我们的回顾性研究旨在评估两种不同的限制性饮食对 GBT 结果的影响。在此之前,推荐饮食为无纤维饮食,在此之后,推荐饮食为无纤维饮食加限制所有可发酵食物。因此,我们对试验前饮食调整前(A 组)和试验后(B 组)的 GBT 结果进行了比较。比较了两组患者的人口统计学特征、进行 GBT 的原因、消化道症状、氢气和甲烷基线值以及摄入葡萄糖后的变化。甲组的甲烷和氢气基线值明显高于乙组(分别为 14 [18] 对 8 [14] ppm,p < 0.01 和 11 [14] 对 6 [8] ppm,p < 0.01)。A 组甲烷(43% vs. 28%,p < 0.05)和氢气(18% vs. 12%,p = 0.03)检测阳性率较高。严格限制纤维和可发酵食物可降低氢气和甲烷基线值以及 GBT 阳性率。因此,应建议在检测前一天严格限制饮食,以限制食物对氢气和甲烷呼气水平的影响,并可能提高 GBT 的诊断质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Normative high resolution esophageal manometry values in asymptomatic patients with obesity A systematic review of yoga for the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders Characterization of idiopathic chronic diarrhea and associated intestinal inflammation and preliminary observations of effects of vagal nerve stimulation in a non‐human primate Sacral neuromodulation in children and adolescents with defecation disorders Real‐world outcomes for a digital prescription mobile application for adults with irritable bowel syndrome
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1