A kinetic study of leucine metabolism in severely burned patients. Comparison between a conventional and branched-chain amino acid-enriched nutritional therapy

Y M Yu, D A Wagner, J C Walesreswski, J F Burke, V R Young, Y M Yu, D A Wagner, J C Walesreswski, J F Burke, V R Young

Abstract

A cross-over design study was used to examine the metabolic consequences of enteral feeding for 48 to 96 hours with either a branched-chain amino acid (BCAA)-enriched (44% BCAA) or a conventional egg protein formulation in 12 severely burned adult patients. A stable isotope labeled leucine (L-1-13C-leucine) tracer approach was used to measure leucine flux and oxidation and to estimate rates of whole body protein synthesis and breakdown. Additionally, 15N2-urea and 6,6-2H-glucose were administered to assess the status of urea and glucose kinetics with these two nutritional treatments. Average patient age was 54 years, and average burn surface area was 36%. Studies were conducted at an average of 25 days postburn. Leucine flux and oxidation were significantly (p less than 0.01, by paired t-test) elevated with BCAA feeding as compared to the egg protein formulation. However, there were no significant differences in the rates of leucine incorporation into, or release from, proteins (p greater than 0.05) between the two dietary periods. Mean rates of body protein synthesis and breakdown for each diet were about twice the rates reported for healthy young adults. Apparent nitrogen balance measurements were not statistically different (p greater than 0.1) between the two diet periods. Furthermore, urea and glucose kinetics failed to show significant differences between the two diet periods. It appears from these results that the major consequences of increased intake of leucine from the BCAA formula is an enhanced rate of leucine oxidation. In conclusion, (1) the availability of BCAAs is not rate-limiting for enhanced protein synthesis in burn patients, and (2) the use of enriched BCAA formulas in burn therapy does not appear to offer advantages over a routinely used enteral egg protein formula, at least based on the present determinations.

References

    1. J Chromatogr. 1974 Aug 14;95(2):189-212
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1984 Sep;159(3):233-41
    1. J Clin Invest. 1975 Nov;56(5):1250-61
    1. Surg Clin North Am. 1976 Oct;56(5):1073-90
    1. Surg Clin North Am. 1976 Oct;56(5):1169-84
    1. Diabetes. 1977 Nov;26(11):1016-23
    1. J Biol Chem. 1978 May 25;253(10):3696-701
    1. Anal Chem. 1979 Jan;51(1):80-4
    1. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1979 May;148(5):675-8
    1. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1979 Apr;160(4):410-5
    1. Ann Surg. 1979 Jul;190(1):18-23
    1. Ann Surg. 1979 Sep;190(3):274-85
    1. Ann Surg. 1980 Apr;191(4):465-72
    1. Am J Physiol. 1980 May;238(5):E473-9
    1. Surgery. 1985 Sep;98(3):405-13
    1. Surgery. 1985 Oct;98(4):632-9
    1. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1986 Sep-Oct;10(5):446-52
    1. Ann Surg. 1980 Jul;192(1):78-85
    1. Ann Surg. 1980;192(4):570-80
    1. Clin Sci (Lond). 1980 Sep;59(3):173-81
    1. Clin Sci (Lond). 1980 Oct;59(4):275-83
    1. Anal Biochem. 1980 Nov 1;108(2):360-6
    1. Am J Physiol. 1981 Apr;240(4):E428-34
    1. Nature. 1982 Mar 11;296(5853):165-7
    1. J Trauma. 1982 Sep;22(9):747-52
    1. Biochem J. 1982 Jun 15;204(3):831-8
    1. Clin Sci (Lond). 1982 Dec;63(6):519-23
    1. Ann Surg. 1983 Feb;197(2):163-71
    1. Proc Nutr Soc. 1983 Sep;42(3):451-62
    1. Proc Nutr Soc. 1983 Sep;42(3):489-95
    1. Ann Surg. 1984 Mar;199(3):286-91
    1. Q J Exp Physiol. 1984 Jul;69(3):409-38
    1. Ann Surg. 1974 Oct;180(4):653-69

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner