Article

Increased protein-energy intake promotes anabolism in critically ill infants with viral bronchiolitis: a double‑blind randomised controlled trial

Department of Paediatrics, Maastricht University Medical Center, PO Box 5800, 6202 AZ Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Archives of Disease in Childhood (Impact Factor: 2.91). 06/2011; 96(9):817-22. DOI: 10.1136/adc.2010.185637
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The preservation of nutritional status and growth is an important aim in critically ill infants, but difficult to achieve due to the metabolic stress response and inadequate nutritional intake, leading to negative protein balance. This study investigated whether increasing protein and energy intakes can promote anabolism. The primary outcome was whole body protein balance, and the secondary outcome was first pass splanchnic phenylalanine extraction (SPE(Phe)).
This was a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Infants (n=18) admitted to the paediatric intensive care unit with respiratory failure due to viral bronchiolitis were randomised to continuous enteral feeding with protein and energy enriched formula (PE-formula) (n=8; 3.1 ± 0.3 g protein/kg/24 h, 119 ± 25 kcal/kg/24 h) or standard formula (S-formula) (n=10; 1.7 ± 0.2 g protein/kg/24 h, 84 ± 15 kcal/kg/24 h; equivalent to recommended intakes for healthy infants <6 months). A combined intravenous-enteral phenylalanine stable isotope protocol was used on day 5 after admission to determine whole body protein metabolism and SPE(Phe).
Protein balance was significantly higher with PE-formula than with S-formula (PE-formula: 0.73 ± 0.5 vs S-formula: 0.02 ± 0.6 g/kg/24 h) resulting from significantly increased protein synthesis (PE-formula: 9.6 ± 4.4, S-formula: 5.2 ± 2.3 g/kg/24 h), despite significantly increased protein breakdown (PE-formula: 8.9 ± 4.3, S-formula: 5.2 ± 2.6 g/kg/24 h). SPE(Phe) was not statistically different between the two groups (PE-formula: 39.8 ± 18.3%, S-formula: 52.4 ± 13.6%).
Increasing protein and energy intakes promotes protein anabolism in critically ill infants in the first days after admission. Since this is an important target of nutritional support, increased protein and energy intakes should be preferred above standard intakes in these infants. Dutch Trial Register number: NTR 515.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Koen F Joosten, Jul 02, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
125 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dietary restrictions required to manage individuals with Inborn Errors of Metabolism (IEM) are essential for metabolic control, however may result in an increased risk to both short and long- term nutritional status. Dietary factors most likely to influence nutritional status include energy intake, protein quality and quantity, micronutrient intake and the frequency and extent to which the diet must be altered during periods of increased physical or metabolic stress. Patients on the most restrictive diets, including those with intakes consisting of low levels of natural protein or those with recurrent illness or frequent metabolic decompensation carry the most nutritional risk. Due to the difficulties in determining condition specific requirements, dietary intake recommendations and nutritional monitoring tools used in patients with IEM are the same as, or extrapolated from, those used in healthy populations. As a consequence, evidence is lacking for the safest dietary prescriptions required to manage these patients long term, as tolerance to dietary therapy is generally described in terms of metabolic stability rather than long term nutritional and health outcomes. As the most frequent therapeutic dietary manipulation in IEM is alteration in dietary protein, and as protein status is critically dependent on adequate energy provision, the use of a Protein to Energy ratio (P:E ratio) as an additional tool will better define the relationship between these critical components. This could accurately define dietary quality and ensure that not only an adequate, but also a safe and balanced intake is provided.
    Molecular Genetics and Metabolism 08/2014; 112(4). DOI:10.1016/j.ymgme.2014.05.008 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In 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. The effect of a HiCarb/LoProt (glucose 10 mg · kg(-1) · min(-1)/protein 0.7 g · kg(-1) · d(-1)) versus a normal-carbohydrate (NormCarb)/LoProt (glucose 7.5 mg · kg(-1) · min(-1)/protein 0.3 g · kg(-1) · d(-1)) 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-(13)C]valine and [(15)N(2)]urea. The 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 (-0.65 μmol · kg(-1) · min(-1), -1.91 to 0.01, and -0.58 μmol · kg(-1) · min(-1), -2.32 to -0.07, 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). In 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.
    Nutrition 01/2012; 28(6):644-50. DOI:10.1016/j.nut.2011.09.018 · 3.05 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are unable to nourish themselves orally. In addition, critical illness increases nutrient requirements as well as alters metabolism. Typically, ICU patients rapidly become malnourished unless they are provided with involuntary feeding either through a tube inserted into the GI tract, called enteral nutrition (EN), or directly into the bloodstream, called parenteral nutrition (PN). Between the 1960s and the 1980s, PN was the modality of choice and the premise was that if some is good, more is better, which led to overfeeding regimens called hyperalimentation. Later, the dangers of overfeeding, hyperglycemia, fatty liver, and increased sepsis associated with PN became recognized. In contrast, EN was not associated with these risks and it gradually became the modality of choice in the ICU. However, ICU patients in whom the gastrointestinal tract was nonfunctional (i.e., gut failure) required PN to avoid malnutrition. In addition, EN was shown, on average, to not meet nutrient requirements, and underfeeding was recognized to increase complications because of malnutrition. Hence, the balanced perspective has been reached of using EN when possible but avoiding underfeeding by supplementing with PN when required. This new role for PN is currently being debated and studied. In addition, the relative merits and needs for protein, carbohydrates, lipids, and micronutrients are areas of study.
    Nutrition Reviews 11/2012; 70(11):623-30. DOI:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00538.x · 5.54 Impact Factor