PWE-128 Review of SeHCAT use at St. George's 2005–2010: an underutilised investigation?. (28th May 2012)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Holmes, R; Hayat, J O; Irwin, A; Heenan, S; Kang, J-Y; Poullis, A
• Is Part Of: Gut. Volume 61(2012)Supplement 2
• Page Start: A349
• Page End: A349
• Publication Date: 2012-05-28
• Subjects: Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302514d.128
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0017-5749

Abstract

Abstract : Introduction: Bile acid malabsorption (BAM) is a frequently overlooked but easily treatable cause of chronic diarrhoea. The SeHCAT study is a simple non-invasive technique for diagnosing this condition. Three types of BAM are described. Type 1 is seen in patients with terminal ileal disease/resection or bypass. Type 2, known as primary or idiopathic BAM, is characterised by lack of discernable change in ileal histology or obvious clinical history or pathology to account for the malabsorption. Type 3 comprises all other causes of BAM including gastric surgery, pancreatitis, cholecystectomy or associated with microscopic colitis, coeliac disease, diabetes and small bowel bacterial overgrowth. Methods: Retrospective review of all SeHCAT studies performed between 2005 and 2010 at St George's Hospital. Results: Between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2010 55 SeHCAT studies were performed. Basic details were available on all 55, however only 44 sets of notes were available. 36 (65%) patients were female and 19 were male. Age ranged from 19 to 77 years old. 62% of studies were abnormal showing <15% retention at 7 days. Of these 11 (32%) demonstrated mild BAM, 8 (24%) moderate BAM and 15 (44%) severe BAM. Of the 34 patients with BAM 28 sets of notes were available. 10 (36%) had Type 1, 8 (29%) had Type 2 and 10 (36%) had Type 3 BAM. In those with proven BAM 46% underwent a trial of bile acid sequestrant (BAS). 88% of patients with follow-up details had good resolution of their symptoms. Response rates to treatment ranged between 60 and 100%. Six of the 10 type 1 BAM subjects had a trial of BAS; follow-up details are only available on 3, 2 of whom had noticed an improvement in symptoms (66%). Six of the 8 type 2 BAM subjects had a BAS, follow-up details are available on 5, 3 of whom had improvement of their symptoms (60%). Four of the 10 type 3 BAM subjects had a BAS, at follow-up details are only available on three all of whom had a good response (100%). Conclusion: As chronic diarrhoea is a common reason for GI referral, the small number of studies performed over a 5-year period suggests that SeHCAT is probably underused and bile acid malabsorption under diagnosed. As bile acid sequestrants provide good symptomatic relief, bile acid malabsorption is a useful diagnosis to make. Competing interests: None declared.