4.6 Article

Body composition changes after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt in patients with cirrhosis

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 348-353

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i3.348

关键词

Insulin resistance; Liver cirrhosis; Malnutrition; Portal hypertension; Transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM: To investigate the effect of transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt (TIPS) on malnutrition in portal hypertensive cirrhotic patients. METHODS: Twenty-one patients with liver cirrhosis and clinical indications for TIPS insertion were investigated before and 1, 4, 12, 52 wk after TIPS. For each patient we assayed body composition parameters [dry lean mass, fat mass, total body water (TBW)], routine liver and kidney function tests, and free fatty acids (FFA). Glucose and insulin were measured for the calculation of the homeostasis model assessment insulin resistance (HOMA-IR); liver function was measured by the galactose elimination capacity (GEC); the severity of liver disease was graded by model for end-stage liver disease (MELD). RESULTS: Porto-systemic gradient decreased after TIPS (6.0 +/- 2.1 mmHg vs 15.8 +/- 4.8 mmHg, P < 0.001). Patients were divided in two groups according to initial body mass index. After TIPS, normal weight patients had an increase in dry lean mass (from 10.9 +/- 5.9 kg to 12.7 +/- 5.6 kg, P = 0.031) and TBW (from 34.5 +/- 7.6 L to 40.2 +/- 10.8 L, P = 0.007), as well as insulin (from 88.9 +/- 49.2 pmol/L to 164.7 +/- 107.0 pmol/L, P = 0.009) and HOMA-IR (from 3.36% +/- 2.18% to 6.18% +/- 4.82%, P = 0.023). In overweight patients only FFA increased significantly (from 0.59 +/- 0.24 mmol/L to 0.93 +/- 0.34 mmol/L, P = 0.023). CONCLUSION: TIPS procedure is effective in lowering portal pressure in patients with portal hypertension and improves body composition without significant changes in metabolic parameters. (C) 2010 Baishideng. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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