4.2 Article

The Nutrient Formula Containing Eicosapentaenoic Acid and Docosahexaenoic Acid Benefits the Fatty Acid Status of Patients Receiving Long-Term Enteral Nutrition

期刊

TOHOKU JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 217, 期 1, 页码 23-28

出版社

TOHOKU UNIV MEDICAL PRESS
DOI: 10.1620/tjem.217.23

关键词

enteral nutrition; essential fatty acid; arachidonic acid; eicosapentaenoic acid; docosahexaenoic acid; dysphagia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Currently, various formulas with different fatty acid compositions are used for enteral nutrition (EN). All formulas contain various concentrations of essential fatty acids: linoleic acid (LA) and alpha-linolenic acid (ALA); LA is biotransformed into arachidonic acid (AA) and ALA into eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) in vivo. Some formulas contain preformed EPA and DHA. However, the effects of the differences in the fatty acid composition on the fatty acid status of patients receiving long-term EN is not clear. We measured serum fatty acid concentrations in 50 patients with neurological diseases receiving long-term EN. The data were then compared retrospectively with reference to the fatty acid compositions of the formulas used. All of the patients received almost their entire nutritional intake via EN for at least 1 year. Blood samples were obtained just before injecting the EN solution. Among the formulas that did not include EPA or DHA, formulas with low ALA concentrations were associated with low serum EPA and DHA. Conversely, the ALA-enriched formulas with reduced LA concentrations significantly increased EPA and DHA levels, although the levels remained lower than the control values. With the formula containing EPA and DHA, the EPA and DHA levels reached control values. Therefore, the fatty acid composition of the EN formulas affected the fatty acid status of patients receiving long-term EN. Formulas containing preformed EPA and DHA with suitable amounts of essential fatty acids may benefit these patients.

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

4.2
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