4.4 Article

Body size in children with chronic kidney disease after gastrostomy tube feeding

期刊

PEDIATRIC NEPHROLOGY
卷 25, 期 10, 页码 2115-2121

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00467-010-1586-y

关键词

Chronic renal failure; Malnutrition; Gastrostomy tubes; Chronic kidney disease; Obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Outcome body size of gastrostomy tube (g-tube)-fed children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) was investigated. CKD patients, stages 2-5, who had a g-tube inserted and removed between 1985 and 2007 were retrospectively reviewed (n = 20) for anthropometrics, lab values, and steroid use from insertion to latest date. CKD patients never having had a g-tube placed (n = 82) acted as the comparison population with similar data collection at start and end of the latest 5-year period. Body mass index (BMI)-for-age, weight (Wt)-for-age, and height (Ht)-for-age z scores were calculated and compared between groups. Median age at insertion and duration of g-tube treatment was 1.7 years (range 0.9-15.6), and 2.9 years (range 0.9-11.8), respectively. There was a significant increase in Wt- (p < 0.01), and BMI-for-age (p < 0.03) z score, but not for Ht-for-age between insertion and removal for subjects. There were no significant differences in Ht-, Wt-, or BMI-for-age z scores, from removal to 5 years post-removal. In the comparison population, there were no significant differences in Ht-, Wt-, or BMI-for-age z scores over the 5-year period. Approximately 36% of the non-tube-fed comparison population and 50% of the tube-fed subjects were overweight or obese at the most recent evaluation. In both subjects and the comparison group, overweight and obesity is associated with transplant status and steroid use. G-tube feeding is an effective method for achieving catch-up weight and moderate height gain in pediatric CKD patients, and does not apparently predispose patients to obesity after removal; however, overweight and obesity may pose problems to children with CKD whether or not they are tube fed.

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

4.4
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