Rhubarb vs. glycerin enema for treatment of critically ill patients with intra‑abdominal hypertension

  • Authors:
    • Bing Wan
    • Hao Zhang
    • Jiangtao Yin
    • Haiyan Fu
    • Yikun Chen
    • Liping Yang
    • Dadong Liu
    • Tangfeng Lv
    • Yong Song
  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: June 7, 2017     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4556
  • Pages: 855-861
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Rhubarb has been used as an evacuant for thousands of years. However, recent research has indicated that rhubarb inhibits inflammation and protects organ function. In the current study, the use of rhubarb was investigated in patients with intra‑abdominal hypertension (IAH). Specifically, its dual role in attenuating lung and bowel injury by catharsis and inhibiting inflammation was evaluated. Patients in the glycerin group (n=56) received 110 ml of glycerin enema by coloclysis once daily for 7 to 9 days. Patients in the rhubarb group (n=56) were treated with a mixture of 0.3 g/kg body weight rhubarb powder in 100 ml warm water. The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sepsis‑Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), intra‑abdominal pressure, procalcitonin (PCT), C‑reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor‑α (TNF‑α) and interleukin (IL)‑6 levels were recorded. The duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), respiratory parameters, first day of enteral nutrition (EN), intensive care unit (ICU) hospital stay and 30‑day mortality were also recorded. The APACHE II scores were significantly lower in the rhubarb group compared with the glycerin group from day 3 to 9 (P<0.05 at day 3 and 4; P<0.01 at day 5, 7 and 9). The SOFA scores were significantly lower in the rhubarb group compared with the glycerin group from day 5 to 9 (P<0.05). PCT levels were significantly lower from day 4 to 9 (P<0.05) and the CRP level was significantly lower from day 3 to 9 (P<0.05) in the rhubarb group compared with the glycerin group. The TNF‑α and IL‑6 were significantly lower in the rhubarb group compared with the glycerin group from day 3 to 9 (P<0.05 at day 3 and 4, P<0.01 at day 5, 7 and 9). The positive end‑expiratory pressure and peak inspiratory pressure were significantly lower in the rhubarb group compared with the glycerin group at day 3, 5 and 7 (P<0.05 at day 3 and 5, P<0.01 at day 7), while the oxygenation index (P<0.05) and alveolar‑arterial partial pressure of oxygen (P<0.05 at day 3 and 5, P<0.01 at day 7) were significantly improved. Significantly shorter durations of MV and ICU hospital stay, and earlier EN, were observed in the rhubarb group compared with the glycerin group (all P<0.05). Rhubarb treatment was indicated to be beneficial in IAH, by inhibiting inflammation and restoring intestinal function.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

July-2017
Volume 14 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 1792-0981
Online ISSN:1792-1015

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Wan B, Zhang H, Yin J, Fu H, Chen Y, Yang L, Liu D, Lv T and Song Y: Rhubarb vs. glycerin enema for treatment of critically ill patients with intra‑abdominal hypertension. Exp Ther Med 14: 855-861, 2017
APA
Wan, B., Zhang, H., Yin, J., Fu, H., Chen, Y., Yang, L. ... Song, Y. (2017). Rhubarb vs. glycerin enema for treatment of critically ill patients with intra‑abdominal hypertension. Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine, 14, 855-861. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4556
MLA
Wan, B., Zhang, H., Yin, J., Fu, H., Chen, Y., Yang, L., Liu, D., Lv, T., Song, Y."Rhubarb vs. glycerin enema for treatment of critically ill patients with intra‑abdominal hypertension". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 14.1 (2017): 855-861.
Chicago
Wan, B., Zhang, H., Yin, J., Fu, H., Chen, Y., Yang, L., Liu, D., Lv, T., Song, Y."Rhubarb vs. glycerin enema for treatment of critically ill patients with intra‑abdominal hypertension". Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine 14, no. 1 (2017): 855-861. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4556