4.6 Article

Are elderly hospitalized patients getting enough protein?

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 56, 期 6, 页码 1045-1049

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01721.x

关键词

aging; protein requirements; nitrogen balance; resting energy expenditure; disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To determine the protein requirements of elderly hospitalized patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional evaluation of nitrogen balance. SETTING: Short-stay geriatric ward or rehabilitation care unit. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six elderly hospitalized patients (aged 65-99) admitted to short-stay and rehabilitation care units. MEASUREMENTS: Resting energy expenditure and nitrogen balance were determined under usual and spontaneous energy and protein intake after subjects were clinically stable (3-5 days after admission). All items consumed over a 3-day period were weighed to determine energy and protein intake. RESULTS: Energy (23.5 +/- 6.3 kcal/kg per day) and protein (0.99 +/- 0.24 g/kg per day) intake were similar in men and women, and nitrogen balance was neutral (0.37 +/- 2.6 g/day; P=.41 vs a neutral nitrogen balance, i.e., 0 g/d). Half of the patients had a positive nitrogen balance. Plasma C-reactive protein, renal function, nutritional status, and initial diagnosis had no influence on nitrogen balance. In contrast, energy and protein intakes correlated positively with nitrogen balance. Linear regression analysis suggested that an elderly hospitalized patient with an energy intake of 1.31 times resting energy expenditure or greater appears to require a minimum protein intake of 1.06 +/- 0.28 g/kg per day. CONCLUSION: Mean protein intake to reach a neutral nitrogen balance in elderly hospitalized patients is 1.06 +/- 0.28 g/kg per day, which is higher than current recommendations for healthy elderly people. Safe protein intake (that would be adequate to ensure that 95% of patients remain in positive nitrogen balance) is difficult to establish.

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