4.7 Article

Effect of different lipid emulsions on the immunological function in humans: A systematic review with meta-analysis

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 302-313

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2007.02.001

Keywords

systematic review; meta-analysis; intravenous; lipid; emulsion; immunological system

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Et aims: Reports regarding the pro- or anti-inflammatory effects of lipid emulsion used in parenterat nutrition are conflicting. Aim was to assess the effect of different intravenous lipid emulsions on immunological function in humans. Methods: We performed a computerized bibliographic search, searched reference lists in trial reports, hand-searched journals and contacted experts in the field. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the immunological effects of different parenterat lipid emulsions were included. Three authors independently performed data extraction, statistical processes were performed by two experts. Immunological parameters were classified by two immunologists as marker of improved or worsened immune function. A meta-analysis with standardized effect size estimation was performed for the comparison between long-chain trigtycerides vs. glucose or other fat emulsions. Results: Of 682 assessed studies, 120 compared the immunological effects of intravenously applied lipid emulsions. Of 30 randomized trials, 14 were included in the metaanalysis. None of the lipid regimens showed any clear effect on the evolution of the immunological status or mortality in humans. Length of hospital stay and stay in the intensive care unit could not be evaluated. Conclusion: We found no evidence that lipid emulsions and in particular those containing long-chain triglycerides have an unfavorable effect on immune function. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available