You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


Advertisement

ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | RSS | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 121 No. 8, August 1986 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Online Only
 •  Online First Table of
Contents
  SPECIAL ARTICLE-WILLIAM A. ALTEMEIER LECTURE
 •Online Features
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (25)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Nutrition and Infection

New Perspectives for an Old Problem

J. Wesley Alexander, MD, ScD

Arch Surg. 1986;121(8):966-972.


Abstract



• Dietary variables have an important influence on immunologic responses, resistance to infection, and survival. Injury and infection can markedly alter dietary requirements and the diet can markedly influence the body's response to injury and/or infection. Experiments are described that show that diets following burn injury required more energy intake, more protein (22% vs 15%), and less fat (10% vs 50%) for optimal support. Oral administration (vs intravenous) improved outcome, especially when given immediately after the burn, which prevented the hypermetabolic response. Crystalline amino acids in the enteral diet had an adverse effect compared with intact protein. The type of lipid in the diet after burn injury strongly influenced immunologic and inflammatory responses, with eicosapentaenoic acid being beneficial and linoleic acid being harmful. Dietary manipulation in surgical disease, especially infection, will have an increasingly important role in outcome as these complex interactions are dissected and understood.

(Arch Surg 1986;121:966-972)



Author Affiliations



From the Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati, and the Cincinnati Shriners' Burns Institute.


Footnotes



Accepted for publication Dec 13, 1986.

Presented as the William A. Altemeier Lecture before the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Surgical Infection Society, New Orleans, April 29, 1985.

Reprint requests to Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati Medical Center, 231 Bethesda Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45267-0558 (Dr Alexander).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Improved Clinical Status and Length of Care With Low-Fat Nutrition Support in Burn Patients
Garrel et al.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1995;19:482-491.
ABSTRACT  

Differential Effects of Three Enteral Dietary Regimens on Selected Outcome Variables in Burn Patients
Gottschlich et al.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1990;14:225-236.
ABSTRACT  

Growth Delay in Postburn Pediatric Patients
Rutan and Herndon
Arch Surg 1990;125:392-395.
ABSTRACT  

Prevention of Yeast Translocation across the Gut by a Single Enteral Feeding after Burn Injury
Inoue et al.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1989;13:565-571.
ABSTRACT  

The Effect of the Immunomodulator RU 41 740 (Biostim) on the Specific and Nonspecific Immunosuppression Induced by Thermal Injury or Protein Deprivation
Christou et al.
Arch Surg 1988;123:207-211.
ABSTRACT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | PHYSICIAN JOBS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1986 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.