4.7 Article

Comparison of pancreas-transplanted type 1 diabetic patients with portal-venous versus systemic-venous graft drainage:: Impact on glucose regulatory hormones and the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor-I axis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
卷 93, 期 5, 页码 1758-1766

出版社

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2007-2350

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Pancreas grafts can be drained through the iliac vein (systemic drainage) or the portal vein. Objective: We hypothesized that normalization of portal insulin in patients with portal pancreas graft drainage stimulates the GH/IGF-I axis and thereby contributes to glucose control. Methods: We compared patients after combined kidney and pancreas transplantation with portal drainage (n = 7) to patients with systemic drainage of the pancreas graft (n = 8) and nondiabetic controls (n = 8). Overnight fasting sera were analyzed for free and total IGF-I and IGF-binding proteins. Glucose regulatory hormones were examined after an oral glucose tolerance test and GH after stimulation with GHRH. Results: Systemic drainage led to higher basal and stimulated insulin levels than portal drainage (P < 0.05), but increments in response to oral glucose were reduced in both transplanted groups (P < 0.05 vs. controls). However, glucose tolerance was similar in all groups. Circulating free and total IGF-I and IGF-binding protein-3 were similar to control levels in the systemic drainage group but elevated in the portal drainage group (P < 0.05). Consistently, the GH response was reduced in the portal drainage group (P < 0.05 vs. controls) and correlated inversely with free IGF-I (r = -0.63, P < 0.05). Conclusion: Portal drainage of pancreatic endocrine secretion in pancreas graft recipients raises IGF-I and lowers GH secretion. These changes might explain that glucose regulation is maintained despite lower peripheral insulin levels, compared with patients with systemic graft drainage and nondiabetic control subjects.

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

4.7
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