کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
6090378 | 1208572 | 2012 | 7 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |

ObjectiveIn pediatric cardiac surgery, fluid-restricted low-protein (LoProt) diets account for cumulative protein deficits with increased morbidity. In this setting, we aimed to inhibit proteolysis by a high-carbohydrate (HiCarb)-intake-induced hyperinsulinemia and improve protein balance.MethodsThe effect of a HiCarb/LoProt (glucose 10 mg · kgâ1 · minâ1/protein 0.7 g · kgâ1 · dâ1) versus a normal-carbohydrate (NormCarb)/LoProt (glucose 7.5 mg · kgâ1 · minâ1/protein 0.3 g · kgâ1 · dâ1) enteral diet on whole-body protein breakdown and balance was compared in a prospective, randomized, single-blinded trial in 24 children after cardiac surgery. On the second postoperative day, plasma insulin and amino acid concentrations, protein breakdown (endogenous rate of appearance of valine), protein synthesis (non-oxidative disposal of valine), protein balance, and the rate of appearance of urea were measured by using an isotopic infusion of [1-13C]valine and [15N2]urea.ResultsThe HiCarb/LoProt diet led to a serum insulin concentration that was three times higher than the NormCarb/LoProt diet (596 pmol/L, 80-1833, and 198 pmol/L, 76-1292, respectively, P = 0.02), without differences in plasma glucose concentrations. There were no differences in plasma amino acid concentrations, non-oxidative disposal of valine, and endogenous rate of appearance of valine between the groups, with a negative valine balance in the two groups (â0.65 μmol · kgâ1 · minâ1, â1.91 to 0.01, and â0.58 μmol · kgâ1 · minâ1, â2.32 to â0.07, respectively, P = 0.71). The serum cortisol concentration in the HiCarb/LoProt group was lower compared with the NormCarb/LoProt group (204 nmol/L, 50-544, and 532 nmol/L, 108-930, respectively, P = 0.02).ConclusionIn children with fluid restriction after cardiac surgery, a HiCarb/LoProt diet compared with a NormCarb/LoProt diet stimulates insulin secretion but does not inhibit proteolysis further and therefore cannot be advocated for this purpose.
Journal: Nutrition - Volume 28, Issue 6, June 2012, Pages 644-650