4.7 Article

A Low Daily Intake of Simple Sugars in the Diet Is Associated with Improved Liver Function in Cirrhotic Liver Transplant Candidates

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15071575

关键词

cirrhosis; simple sugars; liver transplant; DELTA-MELD; cirrhotic diet; visceral adipose tissue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of dietary simple sugar intake on MELD score changes in cirrhotic liver transplant candidates. The results showed that simple sugar intake was positively correlated with MELD score changes, especially in patients with high visceral adipose tissue index.
(1) Background: We investigated, for the first time, whether dietary simple sugar intake affects MELD score changes over time in a cohort of cirrhotic liver transplant candidates. (2) Methods: the MELD score, dietary habits using a 3-day food diary, and visceral adipose tissue index (VATI) measured with CT scan were assessed in 80 consecutive outpatient cirrhotic patients at baseline, after counseling to follow current nutritional guidelines. The MELD score was reassessed after six months and the DELTA-MELD was calculated as the MELD at the second assessment minus the MELD at baseline. (3) Results: Compared with the baseline, the MELD score of cirrhotic patients at the end of the study was decreased, stable, or increased in 36%, 8% and 56% of patients, respectively. In separate multiple linear regression models, DELTA-MELD was positively and independently correlated with the daily intake of simple sugars expressed in g/kg body weight (p = 0.01) or as a percentage of total caloric intake (p = 0.0004) and with the number of daily portions of fruit, added sugar, jam, and honey (p = 0.003). These associations were present almost exclusively in patients with VATI above the median value. (4) Conclusions: In cirrhotic patients with high amounts of visceral adipose tissue the consumption of simple sugars and fructose should be limited to improve their clinical outcome.

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