• Shuo Chen, Liang Liu, Yanmei Li, Hailong Li, Xizhen Sun, Dan Zhu, Qiao Meng, Shukun Yao, and Shiyu Du.
• Department of Gastroenterology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing China.
• Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2021 Feb 1; 56 (2): 137-144.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the effects of colonic electrical stimulation (CES) and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation and to verify the safety of CES in a canine model of constipation.MethodsEight beagles received CES implantation and induction drugs for slow transit constipation (STC). In the STC model, the gastrointestinal transit time (GITT), colonic transit time (CTT), stool frequency and stool consistency were assessed to compare the effects of CES and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation. The histocompatibility of the implantable device was evaluated.ResultsThe individualized parameters for CES varied greatly among the animals, and the GITTs were not significantly shortened by CES or prucalopride; however, both the CES and prucalopride treatment significantly accelerated CTT and improved stool consistency compared with sham stimulation. CES treatment also resulted in significantly higher stool frequency than prucalopride treatment, which did not significantly change the stool frequency. No severe inflammation response was detected in the gross and microscopic appearance around the implants.ConclusionCES and prucalopride treatment may yield similar short-term effects for improving gastrointestinal transit and stool consistency, and CES outperformed prucalopride treatment in terms of defecation inducement in the short term. There were ideal levels of endurance and histocompatibility for the animals that underwent CES.

12 keywords...

hide…