Vertical transmission of gut microbiome and antimicrobial resistance genes in infants exposed to antibiotics at birth.
- 作者列表："Li W","Tapiainen T","Brinkac L","Lorenzi HA","Moncera K","Tejesvi M","Salo J","Nelson KE
:Vertical transmission of maternal microbes is a major route for establishing the gut microbiome in newborns. The impact of perinatal antibiotics on vertical transmission of microbes and antimicrobial resistance is not well understood. Using a metagenomic approach, we analyzed the fecal samples from mothers and vaginally delivered infants from a control group (10 pairs) and a treatment group (10 pairs) receiving perinatal antibiotics. Antibiotic-usage had a significant impact on the main source of inoculum in the gut microbiome of newborns. The control group had significantly more species transmitted from mothers to infants (p=0.03) than the antibiotic-treated group. Approximately 72% of the gut microbial population of infants at 3-7 days after birth in the control group was transmitted from their mothers, versus only 25% in the antibiotic-treated group. In conclusion, perinatal antibiotics markedly disturbed vertical transmission and changed the source of gut colonization towards horizontal transfer from the environment to the infants.
: 母体微生物的垂直传播是建立新生儿肠道微生物组的主要途径。围产期抗生素对微生物垂直传播和抗生素耐药性的影响尚不清楚。使用宏基因组方法，我们分析了来自对照组 (10 对) 和接受围产期抗生素的治疗组 (10 对) 的母亲和阴道分娩婴儿的粪便样本。抗生素使用对新生儿肠道微生物组接种物的主要来源有显著影响。对照组母亲向婴儿传播的物种显著多于抗生素治疗组 (p = 0.03)。对照组中大约 72% 的出生后 3-7 天的婴儿肠道微生物群体是由其母亲传播的，而抗生素治疗组只有 25%。总之，围产期抗生素明显干扰了垂直传播，改变了肠道定植的来源，使其从环境向婴儿水平转移。
METHODS:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effect of esophageal stimulation on nutritional adequacy in critically ill patients at risk for enteral feeding intolerance. DESIGN:A multicenter randomized sham-controlled clinical trial. SETTING:Twelve ICUs in Canada. PATIENTS:We included mechanically ventilated ICU patients who were given moderate-to-high doses of opioids and expected to remain alive and ventilated for an additional 48 hours and who were receiving enteral nutrition or expected to start imminently. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to esophageal stimulation via an esophageal stimulating catheter (E-Motion Tube; E-Motion Medical, Tel Aviv, Israel) or sham treatment. All patients were fed via these catheters using a standardized feeding protocol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:The co-primary outcomes were proportion of caloric and protein prescription received enterally over the initial 7 days following randomization. Among 159 patients randomized, the modified intention-to-treat analysis included 155 patients: 73 patients in the active treatment group and 82 in the sham treatment group. Over the 7-day study period, the percent of prescribed caloric intake (± SE) received by the enteral route was 64% ± 2 in the active group and 65% ± 2 in sham patients for calories (difference, -1; 95% CI, -8 to 6; p = 0.74). For protein, it was 57% ± 3 in the active group and 60% ± 3 in the sham group (difference, -3; 95% CI, -10 to 3; p = 0.30). Compared to the sham group, there were more serious adverse events reported in the active treatment group (13 vs 6; p = 0.053). Clinically important arrhythmias were detected by Holter monitoring in 36 out of 70 (51%) in the active group versus 22 out of 76 (29%) in the sham group (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS:Esophageal stimulation via a special feeding catheter did not improve nutritional adequacy and was associated with increase risk of harm in critically ill patients.
METHODS:RATIONALE:The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared to a lesser amount of calories are unknown. OBJECTIVES:Our hypotheses were that achieving approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness would increase quality of life scores, return to work and key life activities and reduce death and disability six months later. METHODS:We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3957 mechanically ventilated critically ill adults allocated to energy-dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Participants assigned energy-dense nutrition received more calories (% recommended energy intake, mean (SD) (energy-dense: 103% (28) vs. usual: 69% (18)). Mortality at day-180 was similar (560/1895 (29.6%) vs. 539/1920 (28.1%); relative risk 1.05 (95%CI, 0.95 to 1.16)). At a median [IQR] of 185 [182, 193] days after randomization, 2492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality of life questionnaire visual analogue scale, median [IQR]: 75 [60-85]; group difference: 0 (95%CI, 0 to 0)). Similar numbers of participants returned to work with no difference in hours worked or effectiveness at work (n=818). There was no observed difference in disability (n=1208) or participation in key life activities (n=705). CONCLUSIONS:The delivery of approximately 100% compared to 70% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness does not improve quality of life, or functional outcomes, or increase the number of survivors six months later. Clinical trial registration available at www.clinicaltrials.gov, ID: NCT02306746.
METHODS:BACKGROUND:Provision of enteral nutrition with jejunal feeding in upper gastrointestinal obstruction is highly recommended. Access to jejunum can be obtained surgically, percutaneously, or endoscopically. Our institution routinely and preferentially utilizes a silicone nasojejunal tube that is inserted past the obstruction endoscopically. We use a custom dual channel tube that allows feeding at the distal tip and another channel 40 cm from the tip that enables decompression proximally. This is a report of our experience with this custom nasojejunal tube. METHODS:This is a prospective observational study of 201 patients who underwent endoscopic nasojejunal wire-guided feeding tube insertions for obstruction of either the esophagus or the stomach including both benign and malignant pathologies between January 2015 to June 2018 in Hospital Sungai Buloh and Hospital Sultanah Aminah, Malaysia. The indications for tube insertion, insertion technique, and tube-related problems were described. RESULTS:The nasojejunal tube was used to establish enteral feeding in patients with obstructing tumors of the distal esophagus in 65 patients (32.3%) and gastric outlet obstruction in 72 patients (35.8%). There were 54 patients (26.9%) who required reinsertion. The most common reason for reinsertion was unintentional dislodgement, where 32 patients (15.9%) followed by tube blockage 20 patients (10.0%). Using our method of advancement under direct vision, we had only 2 cases of malposition due to severely deformed anatomy. We had no incidence of aspiration in this group of patients and overall, the patients tolerated the tube well. CONCLUSIONS:The novel nasojejunal feeding tube with gastric decompression function is a safe and effective method of delivery of enteral nutrition in patients with upper gastrointestinal obstruction. These tubes if inserted properly are well tolerated with almost no risk of malposition and are tolerated well even for prolonged periods of time until definitive surgery could be performed.