4.2 Article

Dosing and Monitoring of Trace Elements in Long-Term Home Parenteral Nutrition Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
卷 35, 期 6, 页码 736-747

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1177/0148607111413902

关键词

trace elements; home parenteral nutrition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Trace elements (TEs) dosing and monitoring in home parenteral nutrition (PN) patients vary with their underlying conditions. Methods: This retrospective observational study evaluated parenteral TE dosing, serum TE concentrations and monitoring, and dose-concentration relationships between TE doses and serum TE concentrations in 26 adult and adolescent home PN patients. Results: There was a total of 40,493 PN days. Average parenteral zinc doses of 9.1 mg/d and 7.6 mg/d resulted in the majority of serum zinc concentrations (90%) within normal range in patients with and without short bowel syndrome (SBS), respectively. Selenium at about 70 mcg/d resulted in about 60% of serum selenium concentrations within normal range, with 38% of values below normal in patients with and without SBS alike. Copper at 1 mg/d resulted in 22.5% of serum copper concentrations above the normal range. The majority of serum manganese (94.6%) and chromium (96%) concentrations were elevated. Serum TE concentrations were infrequently monitored. Significant relationships existed between doses and serum concentrations for zinc (P < .0001), manganese (P = .012), and chromium (P < .0001) but not for selenium or copper. Conclusions: TE doses in home PN should be individualized and adjusted based on regular monitoring of TE status. In long-term home PN patients, higher zinc and selenium doses may be necessary to maintain their normal serum concentrations. Lower copper doses and restrictions of manganese and chromium supplementation may be needed to avoid their accumulation. Relationships between TE doses and serum TE concentrations vary for each TE and underlying clinical conditions. (JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2011;35:736-747)

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

4.2
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