4.5 Article

Lipoprotein Lipase Deficiency

期刊

INDIAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 88, 期 2, 页码 147-153

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s12098-020-03305-z

关键词

Lipoprotein lipase deficiency; Diet; Pancreatitis; Lipemia retinalis; Lipemic plasma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the clinical and molecular spectrum of Lipoprotein Lipase deficiency, highlighting the importance of a strict low-fat diet in managing the disorder effectively.
Objectives To analyse the clinical and molecular spectrum of Lipoprotein Lipase (LPL) deficiency and to highlight the effect of a cost-effective indigenous diet for management of this disorder. Methods This is a single-centre retrospective study. Fifteen patients from 14 kindreds with severe hypertriglyceridemia (more than 1000 mg/dl) were evaluated for a period of 12.5 y at Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kerala, India. Results Thirteen of 15 patients were referred after incidental detection of lipemic plasma, 1/15 had chylothorax in the neonatal period and 1/15 had pancreatitis. The mean age of presentation was 7 mo (ranging from 2 d to 4 y), and 20% of the patients had a positive history of consanguinity. Hepatomegaly (15/15), splenomegaly (9/15) and lipemia retinalis (14/15) were common findings. Lipemia retinalis was a useful non-invasive diagnostic tool. All the patients were subjected to diet modification and followed up at regular intervals. Fourteen of 15 complied with the diet, resulting in a dramatic improvement in the fasting lipid profile; only 1/15 developed pancreatitis. Genetic screening analysis was offered to 14/15 patients (1/15 was lost to follow-up); six different variants were identified, of which two were novel variants. Conclusions Lipemic serum, chylothorax and recurrent pancreatitis in children should raise the suspicion of Lipoprotein Lipase deficiency. Early diagnosis and prompt initiation of a stringent fat-restricted diet are the keys to success for the management of LPL deficiency and prevention of pancreatitis.

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