4.5 Article

Late-evening snack with branched-chain amino acids improves liver function after radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 7, 页码 658-667

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1872-034X.2012.00969.x

关键词

branched-chain amino acid; Child-Pugh score; hepatocellular carcinoma; liver cirrhosis; radiofrequency ablation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: This prospective study was designed to examine whether consumption of a branched-chain amino acid (BCAA)-enriched nutrient mixture as a late-evening snack (LES) helps maintain and/or improve liver functioning in liver cirrhosis (LC) patients who have undergone radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: An equal number (10) of 30 LC patients who had undergone RFA for HCC was randomly assigned to a standard diet group (control) group, a morning BCAA (M-BCAA) administration group, or a LES with BCAA (LES-BCAA) administration group. Liver function testing was performed and ChildPugh scores (CPS) calculated for each group to assess the improvement at 1, 4 and 12 weeks post-RFA. Results: Compared to the control and M-BCAA groups, the LES-BCAA group experienced a rapid and significant improvement in albumin and total serum bilirubin levels and in CPS that began during the initial post-RFA period. These results indicate that LES with BCAA supplementation significantly improved the CPS of the LES-BCAA group at 4 and 12 weeks post-RFA. Although no patients experienced serious adverse effects, two patients who had been diagnosed with diabetes mellitus before undergoing RFA required blood sugar management to improve glycemic control and one subject withdrew due to supplement-induced vomiting. Conclusion: LES with BCAA supplementation significantly and rapidly improves liver functioning and CPS in LC patients who have undergone RFA for HCC. Control of blood sugar levels is necessary when calorie-containing BCAA is administrated to LC patients with impaired glucose tolerance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据