Original Paper: Small Intestine
Comparison of the 1-Gram 14C-D-Xylose Breath Test and the 50-Gram Hydrogen Glucose Breath Test for Diagnosis of Small Intestinal Bacterial OvergrowthStotzer P.-O. · Kilander A.F.
Department of Internal Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Background/Aims: Culture of small bowel aspirate is the most direct method and the gold standard for diagnosing small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. However, cultures are cumbersome and fluoroscopy is required for obtaining aspirate. Therefore, different breath tests such as the xylose breath test and the hydrogen breath test have been developed. There is no general agreement as to which test is to be preferred. In the only previous direct comparison between these two tests an advantage for the 1-gram-14C-D-xylose breath test was found. The aim of the study was to compare the 50-gram glucose hydrogen breath test and the 1-gram 14C-D-xylose breath test in relation to results of cultures of small bowel aspirate. Methods: Forty-six consecutive patients, mean age 57 (range 27–87) years, 12 men and 34 women, were included because of suspicion of small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. After small bowel aspiration, all patients received a solution of 1 g xylose, labelled with 50 µg 14C-D-xylose, and 50 g glucose dissolved in 250 ml water. The concentration of breath hydrogen was analyzed every 15 min for 2 h and 14CO2 was analyzed every 30 min for 4 h. A positive hydrogen breath test was defined as a rise in hydrogen concentration of 15 ppm. A positive xylose test was defined as an accumulated dose 4.5% after 4 h. Two definitions for a positive culture were used, either growth of 105 colonic-type bacteria/ml or growth of 105 bacteria/ml of any type. Results: Twenty-four patients had growth of 105 bacteria, of whom 10 had growth of 105 colonic-type bacteria in small bowel aspirate. Twenty-two patients had no significant growth. The hydrogen breath test and the xylose breath test had a sensitivity for growth of 105 bacteria of 58 and 42%, respectively. For growth of 105 colonic-type bacteria the sensitivity was 90% for the hydrogen breath test and 70% for the xylose breath test. The specificity was similar for the two tests. Conclusion: Although no significant difference between the two tests was found, there was a tendency in favor of the 50-gram glucose hydrogen breath test. The simplicity in combination with high sensitivity makes the hydrogen breath test suitable as a screening method to select patients for further investigation.
© 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.