Skip to main content

Table 2B Baseline characteristics and their associations with the improvement of therapeutic targets and the overall responses at week 8 in 63 refractory functional constipation patients treated with washed microbiota transplantation, as determined by univariate analyses

From: Efficacy of washed microbiota transplantation for therapeutic targets of refractory functional constipation and the influencing factors: a single-center, retrospective, 24-week follow-up study

Baseline characteristics

Improvement of therapeutic targets and overall response&

 

Straining

(27 vs. 33)

Hard stools

(26 vs. 31)

Incomplete evacuation

(6 vs. 8)

Anorectal obstruction

(5 vs. 4)

Decreased stool frequency

(28 vs. 18)

Overall response

(32 vs. 31)

 

Sex

        

Male (n = 29)

46.0%

55.6% vs. 57.6%

53.8% vs. 54.8%

66.7% vs. 50.0%

80.0% vs. 75.0%

50.0% vs. 44.4%

56.3% vs. 51.6%

 

Female (n = 44)

54.0%

44.4% vs. 42.4%

46.2% vs. 45.2%

33.3% vs. 50.0%

20.0% vs. 25.0%

50.0% vs. 55.6%

43.8% vs. 48.4%

Age, year

60.8 ± 15.0

61.3 ± 12.0 vs. 59.7 ± 17.4

61.5 ± 11.7 vs. 59.8 ± 17.4

58.0 ± 15.9 vs. 67.5 ± 15.8

62.2 ± 7.7 vs. 71.5 ± 3.3

61.7 ± 12.2vs. 59.5 ± 18.7

60.3 ± 12.1 vs. 61.1 ± 17.6

Duration of disease, year

6 (2–12)

7 (2–15) vs. 6 (2.5–13.5)

10 (3–20) vs. 5 (1–10)

2 (0.5–10) vs. 7.5 (1.75–17.5)

3 (1.5–25) vs.6 (1.25–13.75)

7 (3-18.75) vs.6 (1–10)

7 (3-13.75) vs.6 (1–12)

Number of SCBMs/week

2 (1–3)

5 (4–6) vs.3 (2–3)*

5 (3.75-6) vs.2 (2–3)*

5.5 (4–7) vs.3.5 (2.25–6.75)

4 (3–6) vs.4.5 (2.25–6.75)

4 (3-5.75) vs.2 (1–2)*

5 (3.25-6) vs.2 (2–3)*

BSFS score

2 (1–2)

4 (3–4) vs.2 (2–3)*

3 (3–4) vs.2 (2–2)*

3.5 (3-4.25) vs.2 (2-3.75)**

3 (2.5–4.5) vs.2.5 (1.25–3.75)

3 (3–4) vs.2 (1.75-2)*

3.5 (3–4) vs.2 (2–2)*

Wexner constipation score

9 (8–11)

6 (4–7) vs.10 (8–11)*

6 (4–7) vs.10 (8–11)*

5.5 (3–8) vs.9 (6.5–10)**

7 (3.5–12.5) vs.7.5 (3.25–9.5)

6 (5.25–9.5) vs.10 (8-10.25)*

6 (4–7) vs.10 (8–11)*

Course of WMT

1 (1–3)

2 (1–3) vs.1 (1–2)*

2 (1–3) vs.1 (1–2)*

3 (1–3) vs.1 (1–2)

1 (1–3) vs.1 (1-1.75)

2 (1–3) vs.1 (1–1)*

2 (1–3) vs.1 (1–1)*

1 (n = 37)#

58.7%

40.7% vs. 72.7%

46.2% vs. 74.2%

33.3% vs. 62.5%

60.0% vs. 75.0%

32.1% vs. 94.4%

37.5% vs. 80.6%

2 (n = 10)

15.9%

22.2% vs. 9.1%**

19.2% vs. 12.9%

0.0% vs. 25.0%

0.0% vs. 25.0%

21.4% vs. 5.6%*

25.0% vs. 6.5%*

3 (n = 16)

25.4%

37.0% vs. 18.2%*

34.6% vs. 12.9%*

66.75 vs. 12.5%

40.0% vs. 0.0%

46.4% vs. 0.0%

37.5% vs. 12.9%*

Course of WMT ≥ 2 (n = 26)

41.3%

59.3% vs. 27.3%*

53.8% vs. 25.8%*

66.7% vs. 37.5%

40.0% vs. 25.0%

67.9% vs. 5.6%*

62.5% vs. 19.4%*

History of laxative use

76.2%

63.0% vs. 84.8%**

73.1% vs. 80.6%

66.7% vs. 87.5%

80.0% vs. 50.0%

75.0% vs. 83.3%

68.8% vs. 83.9%

  1. SCBMs/week, spontaneous complete bowel movements per week; WMT, washed microbiota transplantation; BSFS, Bristol Stool Form Scale;
  2. &, responders vs. non-responders, responders were defined as those patients whose total scores decreased by 2 compared to the baseline;
  3. #, one course of WMT was used as the reference, with which other (i.e., two, three, and two plus three) courses were compared, respectively;
  4. Continuous data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median with interquartile range, where appropriate, while categorical data are presented as number (percentage)
  5. *, P < 0.05; **, P < 0.1
Back to article page

BMC Gastroenterology

ISSN: 1471-230X

Contact us