4.6 Article

Enteral feeding induces diet-dependent mucosal dysfunction, bacterial proliferation, and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm pigs on parenteral nutrition

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpgi.00414.2007

关键词

neonate; colostrum; formula; intestine; bacterial colonization

资金

  1. Danish Research Councils

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Preterm neonates have an immature gut and metabolism and may benefit from total parenteral nutrition (TPN) before enteral food is introduced. Conversely, delayed enteral feeding may inhibit gut maturation and sensitize to necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Intestinal mass and NEC lesions were first recorded in preterm pigs fed enterally (porcine colostrum, bovine colostrum, or formula for 20-40 h), with or without a preceding 2-to 3-day TPN period (n = 435). Mucosal mass increased during TPN and further after enteral feeding to reach an intestinal mass similar to that in enterally fed pigs without TPN (+60-80% relative to birth). NEC developed only after enteral feeding but more often after a preceding TPN period for both sow's colostrum (26 vs. 5%) and formula (62 vs. 39%, both P < 0.001, n = 43-170). Further studies in 3-day-old TPN pigs fed enterally showed that formula feeding decreased villus height and nutrient digestive capacity and increased luminal lactic acid and NEC lesions, compared with colostrum (bovine or porcine, P < 0.05). Mucosal microbial diversity increased with enteral feeding, and Clostridium perfringens density was related to NEC severity. Formula feeding decreased plasma arginine, citrulline, ornithine, and tissue antioxidants, whereas tissue nitric oxide synthetase and gut permeability increased, relative to colostrum (all P < 0.05). In conclusion, enteral feeding is associated with gut dysfunction, microbial imbalance, and NEC in preterm pigs, especially in pigs fed formula after TPN. Conversely, colostrum milk diets improve gut maturation and NEC resistance in preterm pigs subjected to a few days of TPN after birth.

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