4.3 Article

Parenteral fat emulsions based on olive and soybean oils:: A randomized clinical trial in preterm infants

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005176-200308000-00015

关键词

infant nutrition; intravenous fat emulsions; olive oil; soybean oil; vitamin E; peroxidation; essential fatty acids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate in premature infants a new parenteral lipid emulsion based on olive and soybean oils (ratio 4: 1), with less polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) and more a-tocopherol than standard soybean oil emulsion. Study design: Premature infants (gestational age, 28-<37 Weeks) Were randomized to receive one of the two emulsions within the first 72 hours of life. The triglyceride dose was increased to 2 g/kg/day Within 3 days. Plasma phospholipid fatty acids, alpha-tocopherol/lipid ratio, and urinary malondialdehyde (NIDA) excretion Were determined at baseline and after 7 days. Results: Of 45 recruited infants, 33 completed the study per protocol (15 soybean oil. 18 olive oil emulsion). At study end, Groups did not differ in plasma phospholipid arachidonic acid, total n-6 and n-3 metabolites, but the olive oil group showed higher values of the PUFA intermediates C18:3n-6 (0.19% +/- 0.01% vs. 0.13% +/- 0.02%, P < 0.05) and C20:3n-6 (2.92% +/- 0.12% vs. 2.21% +/- 0.17%, P = 0.005). The plasma alpha-tocopherol/total lipd ratio was higher in the olive oil group (2.45 +/- 0.27 mumol/mmol vs. 1.90 +/- 0.08 mumol/mmol, P = 0.001), whereas urinary MDA excretion did not differ. Conclusion: The lower PUFA supply with the olive/soybean oil emulsion appears to enhance linoleic acid conversion. The reduced PUFA content, combined with a higher antioxidant intake in the olive oil group, results in an improved vitamin E status. The olive oil-based emulsion is a valuable alternative for parenteral feeding of preterm infants who are often exposed to oxidative stress, while their antioxidative defense is weak. (C) 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

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

4.3
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