Comparison of the effects of colonic electrical stimulation and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation in a canine model of constipation

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of colonic electrical stimulation (CES) and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation and to verify the safety of CES in a canine model of constipation.

Methods

Eight beagles received CES implantation and induction drugs for slow transit constipation (STC). In the STC model, the gastrointestinal transit time (GITT), colonic transit time (CTT), stool frequency and stool consistency were assessed to compare the effects of CES and prucalopride on gastrointestinal transit and defecation. The histocompatibility of the implantable device was evaluated.

Results

The individualized parameters for CES varied greatly among the animals, and the GITTs were not significantly shortened by CES or prucalopride; however, both the CES and prucalopride treatment significantly accelerated CTT and improved stool consistency compared with sham stimulation. CES treatment also resulted in significantly higher stool frequency than prucalopride treatment, which did not significantly change the stool frequency. No severe inflammation response was detected in the gross and microscopic appearance around the implants.

Conclusion

CES and prucalopride treatment may yield similar short-term effects for improving gastrointestinal transit and stool consistency, and CES outperformed prucalopride treatment in terms of defecation inducement in the short term. There were ideal levels of endurance and histocompatibility for the animals that underwent CES.

Keywords:

• Colonic electrical stimulation
• prucalopride
• slow transit constipation
• gastrointestinal transit
• defecation

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr Wang Chen (Institute of Clinical Medicine, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China) and Dr Yan Chen (Department of Radiology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China) for providing technical support on animal management and abdominal radiology.

Ethical approval

The study was approved by Animal Care and Welfare Committee of China-Japan Friendship Hospital (Beijing, China; ethics approval no. 20140102). All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the China-Japan Friendship Hospital.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the China-Japan Friendship Hospital Foundation [grant no. 2019-1-QN-2].