Open Access

Liver dysfunction associated with artificial nutrition in critically ill patients

  • Teodoro Grau1Email author,
  • Alfonso Bonet2,
  • Mercedes Rubio3,
  • Dolores Mateo4,
  • Mercé Farré5,
  • José Antonio Acosta6,
  • Antonio Blesa7,
  • Juan Carlos Montejo8,
  • Abelardo García de Lorenzo9,
  • Alfonso Mesejo10 and
  • the Working Group on Nutrition and Metabolism of the Spanish Society of Critical Care
Critical Care200711:R10

https://doi.org/10.1186/cc5670

Received: 20 July 2006

Accepted: 25 January 2007

Published: 25 January 2007

Abstract

Introduction

Liver dysfunction associated with artificial nutrition in critically ill patients is a complication that seems to be frequent, but it has not been assessed previously in a large cohort of critically ill patients.

Methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study of incidence in 40 intensive care units. Different liver dysfunction patterns were defined: (a) cholestasis: alkaline phosphatase of more than 280 IU/l, gamma-glutamyl-transferase of more than 50 IU/l, or bilirubin of more than 1.2 mg/dl; (b) liver necrosis: aspartate aminotransferase of more than 40 IU/l or alanine aminotransferase of more than 42 IU/l, plus bilirubin of more than 1.2 mg/dl or international normalized ratio of more than 1.4; and (c) mixed pattern: alkaline phosphatase of more than 280 IU/l or gamma-glutamyl-transferase of more than 50 IU/l, plus aspartate aminotransferase of more than 40 IU/l or alanine aminotransferase of more than 42 IU/l.

Results

Seven hundred and twenty-five of 3,409 patients received artificial nutrition: 303 received total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and 422 received enteral nutrition (EN). Twenty-three percent of patients developed liver dysfunction: 30% in the TPN group and 18% in the EN group. The univariate analysis showed an association between liver dysfunction and TPN (p < 0.001), Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score on admission (p < 0.001), sepsis (p < 0.001), early use of artificial nutrition (p < 0.03), and malnutrition (p < 0.01). In the multivariate analysis, liver dysfunction was associated with TPN (p < 0.001), sepsis (p < 0.02), early use of artificial nutrition (p < 0.03), and calculated energy requirements of more than 25 kcal/kg per day (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

TPN, sepsis, and excessive calculated energy requirements appear as risk factors for developing liver dysfunction. Septic critically ill patients should not be fed with excessive caloric amounts, particularly when TPN is employed. Administering artificial nutrition in the first 24 hours after admission seems to have a protective effect.

Introduction

Artificial nutrition support is part of the standard of care in critically ill patients [1]. Some of these patients have sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome, which produce hypermetabolism, accelerated lipolysis, insulin resistance, and protein catabolism. These phenomena, associated with the lack of oral intake, can lead to malnutrition. Artificial nutrition usually does not reverse these metabolic derangements but can decrease the depletion of the lean body mass [2]. Hepatobiliary complications related to artificial nutrition have been widely reported, particularly in patients receiving total parenteral nutrition (TPN), and less frequently in patients receiving enteral nutrition (EN) [3]. There are many potential causes of liver dysfunction (LD) related to artificial nutrition, but the etiology is unclear and there are few data on the prevalence in critically ill patients. Moreover, these patients can present hepatic dysfunction as part of the multiple organ failure syndrome [4]. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of hepatobiliary complications related to artificial nutrition, the risk factors associated with these complications, and their influence on the prognosis in critically ill patients.

Materials and methods

Design

This study was designed as a multicenter prospective cohort study of incidence of LD in patients admitted to any of the 40 participating intensive care units (ICUs) from tertiary hospitals in Spain between 1 March and 15 April 2000. Patients were enrolled consecutively when the treating physician expected them to need artificial nutrition for five days or more. The protocol and definitions of LD were established previously in a meeting with the participants. The institutional review board of each participating hospital approved the study. Informed consent was waived according to these boards and Spanish law. Our funding sources had no role in the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data or in the submission of this report.

Patients

Patients entered in the study were followed prospectively until hospital discharge or 28 days after ICU admission to check mortality at that time. Age, gender, weight, primary diagnosis, group (medical, surgical, or trauma), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score [5], Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS) [4], the need for mechanical ventilation, and the presence and origin of sepsis and/or septic shock were recorded on admission. The diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock on admission was made according to previously published criteria [6]. Sepsis was defined when a patient had a confirmed infection with two or more of the following criteria: (a) temperature greater than 38°C or less than 36°C, (b) heart rate greater than 90 beats per minute, (c) respiratory rate greater than 20 respirations per minute or PaCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide) less than 32 mm Hg, and (d) leukocytes greater than 12,000 per cubic millimeter or greater than 10% band neutrophils. Septic shock was defined as arterial hypotension induced by sepsis, which persists in spite of the adequate replacement of fluids and associated with hypoperfusion and organ dysfunction. Exclusion criteria were age of less than 18 years, expected survival of less than 24 hours, or previous cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Patients with previously recognized liver disease were excluded by the following criteria: (a) portal hypertension with gastrointestinal bleeding at the time of admission and/or transfer, (b) clinically apparent ascites on a hepatocellular basis, (c) total bilirubin of more than 3 mg/dl or aspartate aminotransferase of more than 40 IU/l or on a hepatocellular basis, (d) serum albumin of less than 0.03 g/l with portal hypertension, (e) encephalopathy of grade II or greater, and (f) clinical diagnosis of alcoholic hepatitis [7].

Choice of the type of nutrition

The clinician responsible for the patient chose the type of nutrition, the administration route, and the type of diet following the published recommendations [8]. The protocol was discussed in previous meetings with the researchers. The use of early artificial nutrition was encouraged to the participants. EN was recommended as the preferred route for feedings if the patient's gastrointestinal system was preserved. Clinicians could switch to TPN if the patient did not tolerate EN due to gastrointestinal complications or if 75% of the caloric requirements were not achieved after three days of enteral feedings. Also, clinicians were allowed to administer EN for as long as the gastrointestinal function was recovered. In both cases, the amount of calories was limited to the planned caloric intake. TPN was administered through a central venous catheter, with the use of 'all in one' ternary mixtures, by means of a continuous pump infusion. The TPN bag was replaced every 24 hours. EN was administered through a nasogastric or nasojejunal tube at the doctor's discretion and continuously through an infusion pump in accordance with a previously established protocol [9]. The systems used for EN administration were replaced at least once a day, and the feeding tube was flushed on a shift basis three times a day with 20 ml of distilled water. Malnutrition was assessed by means of the Subjective Global Assessment [10]. The calculated nutritional requirements were 25 kcal/kg per day (using the actual weight) with an intake of 1 to 1.5 g of protein/kg per day and a ratio of carbohydrates/fat of 60:40, in agreement with the recommendations published by the SEMICYUC (Spanish Society of Intensive Care) [11]. Fats used in the TPN group were long-chain triglyceride (LCT) or a physical admixture of medium-chain triglyceride (MCT)/LCT, according to the practice of each center. Enteral diets used in the EN group were always polymeric. Once the nutrition had been started, the following parameters were recorded: blood sugar and glucosuria every six hours; urea, creatinine, sodium, potassium, and chlorine every 24 hours; and a weekly analysis that included cholesterol, triglycerides, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, and osmolarity. Liver function tests (total and direct bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl-transferase, and alkaline phosphatase), prothrombin time, and international normalized ratio (INR) were recorded on admission and twice a week (on Tuesday and Friday). The withdrawal of artificial nutrition was defined as the definitive suppression of artificial nutrition, and suspension was defined as a temporary cancellation not longer than 24 hours.

Definitions

The criteria used in this study to define the patterns of LD were the following: (a) cholestasis: alkaline phosphatase of more than 280 IU/l, gamma-glutamyl-transferase of more than 50 IU/l, or bilirubin of more than 1.2 mg/dl; (b) liver necrosis: aspartate aminotransferase of more than 40 IU/l, alanine aminotransferase of more than 42 IU/l, or INR of more than 1.4; and (c) mixed pattern: alkaline phosphatase of more than 280 IU/l, gamma-glutamyl-transferase of more than 50 IU/l, or bilirubin of more than 1.2 mg/dl, plus aspartate aminotransferase of more than 40 IU/l, alanine aminotransferase of more than 42 IU/l, or INR of more than 1.4. These boundaries represent a 10% increase of the normal values in the reference laboratories used. LD was diagnosed when any of the previously defined enzymatic alterations were present. The diagnosis of acalculous cholecystitis was based on clinical criteria and ultrasound. Liver biopsies were not carried out in this study.

Statistical analysis

An intention-to-treat analysis was done for both types of nutrition, TPN and EN. The newly created database was centralized and managed by the main researchers. Any doubts about application of the protocol were discussed with the participants, and the main researchers made the final decision. Once the time of the study was over, the database was closed down. The analysis was blind to the type of nutrition used. The statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS v12 program (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA). The quantitative values were analyzed for normality. The values with normal distribution were compared using the Student's t test, and the others using non-parametric tests (Kruskall-Wallis test). The qualitative values were compared using Fisher's uncorrected chi-square test, and we calculated the relative risk with the confidence interval (CI) set at 95%. Statistical significance was set at p less than 0.05. The quantitative data were expressed as a median and interquartile (IQ) range, and the qualitative data were expressed in absolute values and percentages. The multivariate analysis for LD was carried out by means of a 'stepwise forward' logistical regression model with the most important demographic variables and those that reached statistical significance in the univariate analysis. Time free of LD was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meyer test.

Results

Description of the population

Three thousand four hundred and nine patients were admitted during the study. Seven hundred and fifty-six patients received nutrition in some form, whether TPN or EN, but 31 were excluded and 725 were studied (Table 1). Four hundred and eighty-eight were men and 237 were women. Three hundred and three patients (41.8%) received TPN and 422 (58.2%) received EN as the initial treatment. The patients who received TPN were older than those treated with EN (66 years, IQ range 48 to 73 years, versus 61 years, IQ range 45 to 71 years; p < 0.01) and mainly were women (38% versus 29%; p < 0.05). TPN was mostly used in surgical patients (175/264 versus 89/264; p < 0.001). Two hundred and eight patients had sepsis on admission; of these patients, 105 had septic shock. In both cases, TPN was used more frequently than EN. APACHE II score was higher in the group of patients who received EN (19, IQ range 13 to 23, versus 17, IQ range 12 to 22), without reaching statistical significance. More patients in the EN group required mechanical ventilation (91% versus 79%; p < 0.001). Also, ICU length of stay was longer in patients who received EN (12 days, IQ range 7 to 21 days, versus 8 days, IQ range 5 to 17 days; p < 0.001). Mortality, assessed 28 days after admission, showed no significant differences in either group (Table 2).
Table 1

Patient flow through the study

Patients admitted to the intensive care unit

3,409

Patients without artificial nutrition

2,653

Patients with artificial nutrition

756

Patients excluded

31

Patients studied

725

Patients on total parenteral nutrition

303

   Patients also receiving enteral nutrition*

122

Patients on enteral nutrition

422

   Patients also receiving total parenteral nutrition**

67

* Group of patients who received enteral nutrition after TPN

** Group of patients who received TPN after enteral nutrition

Table 2

Demographic data

 

TPN

EN

Total

p

Number of patients

303

422

725

 

Women

114 (38%)

123 (29%)

237 (33%)

0.02

Age in years

66 (48–73)

61 (45–71)

63 (47–72)

0.01

APACHE II score

17 (12–22)

19 (13–23)

18 (12–22)

0.08

MODS

5 (3–8)

5 (3–7)

5 (3–7)

0.95

Primary diagnosis

   

0.001

   Gastrointestinal surgery

145

33

178

 

   Respiratory failure

21

112

133

 

   Stroke

22

103

125

 

   Cardiovascular

36

50

86

 

   Trauma

19

64

83

 

   Infections in non-immunosuppressed patients

18

22

40

 

   Infections in immunosuppressed patients

4

7

11

 

   Metabolic diseases

5

5

10

 

   Urology

4

6

10

 

   Hematology

7

2

9

 

   Poisoning

4

4

8

 

   Obstetrics/Gynecology

6

1

7

 

   AIDS

1

1

2

 

   Other

11

12

23

 

Type of patients

   

0.001

   Medical

105

257

362

 

   Surgical

175

89

264

 

   Trauma

23

76

99

 

Sepsis on admission

122 (40%)

86 (20%)

208 (29%)

0.001

Septic shock on admission

70 (23%)

35 (8%)

105 (15%)

0.001

Patients on mechanical ventilation

239 (79%)

382 (91%)

621 (86%)

0.001

Days of mechanical ventilation

7 (2–16)

9 (4–17)

8 (3–16)

0.001

Intensive care unit length of stay in days

8 (5–17)

12 (7–21)

10 (6–20)

0.001

Hospital length of stay in days

25 (15–29)

25 (15–28)

25 (15–29)

0.6

Mortality at 28 days

85 (28.1%)

119 (28.2%)

204 (28%)

0.9

Parenthetical values indicate range or percentage. APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; EN, enteral nutrition; MODS, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score; TPN, total parenteral nutrition.

The nutritional parameters were different in the two groups of patients. There was a significant statistical association between TPN and severe malnutrition (36% versus 15%; p < 0.001). The calculated energy requirements were similar in both groups as well as the days of artificial nutrition. Nutrition was started early after admission in both groups (median: 1 day, IQ range: 0 to 2 days), without differences between them. The duration of artificial nutrition was also similar in both groups (median: 9 days, IQ range: 5 to 8 days). One hundred and twenty-two patients assigned to the TPN group received EN when the gastrointestinal function recovered, and EN was stopped in 67 because they were unable to achieve the caloric requirements at day 3 or because they had EN-related complications. MCT/LCT admixtures were used in both groups when receiving TPN, without differences between them. Patients with EN received significantly fewer calories per kilogram on day 1 (20.8, IQ range 15.7 to 25, versus 22.9, IQ range 217.57 to 27.67; p < 0.01) and day 3 of the study (22.5, IQ range 17.65 to 26.87, versus 24.1, IQ range 20 to 29.45; p < 0.005) (Table 3).
Table 3

Nutritional parameters

 

TPN

EN

Total

p

 

303

422

725

 

Weight

70 (63–80)

73 (65–80)

72 (65–80)

0.2

Nutritional status

   

0.001

Moderate malnutrition

76 (25%)

49 (12%)

125 (17%)

 

Severe malnutrition

33 (11%)

14 (3%)

47 (7%)

 

Energy requirements per kilogram

25 (23.29–29.37)

25 (23.76–30)

25 (23.64–29.74)

0.7

Patients receiving TPN

-

67

  

Patients receiving EN

122

-

  

Patients receiving MCT/LCT on TPN

186 (61%)

47 (71%)

233 (63%)

0.2

Days of artificial nutrition

8 (4–18)

10 (5–19)

9 (5–8)

0.2

   Days on EN

1 (0–1)

9 (5–18)

6 (1–13)

0.001

   Days on TPN

7 (3–11)

0 (0–1)

1 (0–7)

0.001

Starting time after ICU admission in days

1 (0–2)

1 (0–2)

1 0–2)

0.6

Prescribed caloric intake per kilogram on day 1

24.65 (18.77–28.57)

23.53 (20.00–26.67)

24 (19.3–27.64)

0.09

Administered caloric intake per kilogram on day 1

22.92 (17.57–27.67)

20.8 (15.72–25)

21.43 (16.36–26.28)

0.01

Prescribed caloric intake per kilogram on day 3

25 (21.25–30)

25 (21.25–28.57)

25 (21.25–29.36)

0.3

Administered caloric intake per kilogram on day 3

24.17 (20–29.45)

22.5 (17.65–26.87)

23.14 (18.69–27.99)

0.003

Prescribed caloric intake per kilogram on day 7

25.84 (22.22–29.94)

25.35 (21.43–30)

25.66 (21.43–30)

0.6

Administered caloric intake per kilogram on day 7

24.72 (20–29.46)

24.06 (19.63–28.57)

24.31 (19.76–28.61)

0.2

Parenthetical values indicate range or percentage. EN, enteral nutrition; ICU, intensive care unit; MCT/LCT, medium-chain triglyceride/long-chain triglyceride; TPN, total parenteral nutrition.

LD and artificial nutrition

One hundred and sixty-six patients (23%) had LD. There was a significant statistical association between the appearance of LD and age (p < 0.01), the MODS score (p < 0.001), in surgical (35%) and trauma patients (41%) (p < 0.03), if they had sepsis (p < 0.001) or septic shock on admission (p < 0.02), and in patients who were mechanically ventilated (p < 0.02). The stay in the ICU (16 days, IQ range 8 to 28 days, versus 9 days, IQ range 5 to 17 days; p < 0.001) and in the hospital (28 days, IQ range 17 to 29 days, versus 23 days, IQ range 14 to 28 days; p < 0.01) was longer in the group with LD. No difference in mortality was shown between the two groups (Table 4). The patients with LD were less nourished (33% versus 21%; p < 0.01) and were treated mostly with TPN (30% versus 18%; p < 0.001) for more days (13 days, IQ range 8 to 25, versus 8 days, IQ range 4 to 16 days; p < 0.001). Patients fed early had significantly less LD. The use of MCT/LCT admixtures was similar in patients with or without LD, but the calculated energy requirements were higher (25.54 kcal/kg per day, IQ range 24.49 to 30 kcal/kg per day, versus 25 kcal/kg per day, IQ range 23.33 to 29.41 kcal/kg per day; p < 0.05) (Table 5).
Table 4

Demographic data in patients with and without liver dysfunction

 

With liver dysfunction

Without liver dysfunction

Total

p

Number of patients

166 (23%)

559 (77%)

725

 

Women

54 (33%)

183 (33%)

237 (33%)

0.9

Age in years

63 (47–72)

63 (44–73)

63 (47–72)

0.8

APACHE II score

18 (14–23)

18 (12–22)

18 (12–22)

0.2

MODS

6 (4–8)

5 (3–7)

5 (3–7)

0.001

Primary diagnosis

   

0.4

   Gastrointestinal surgery

52

126

178

 

   Respiratory failure

26

107

133

 

   Stroke

27

98

125

 

   Cardiovascular

14

72

86

 

   Trauma

16

67

83

 

   Infections in non-immunosuppressed patients

12

28

40

 

   Infections in immunosuppressed patients

3

8

11

 

   Metabolic diseases

1

9

10

 

   Urology

3

7

10

 

   Hematology

1

8

9

 

   Poisoning

2

6

8

 

   Obstetrics/Gynecology

3

4

7

 

   AIDS

1

1

2

 

   Other

5

18

23

 

Type of patients

   

0.03

   Medical

68

294

362

 

   Surgical

69

195

264

 

   Trauma

29

70

99

 

Sepsis on admission

68 (41%)

140 25%)

208 (29%)

0.001

Septic shock on admission

33 (20%)

72 (13%)

105 (15%)

0.02

Patients on mechanical ventilation

152 (92%)

469 (84%)

621 (86%)

0.01

Days of mechanical ventilation

13 (6–24)

7 (3–14)

8 (3–16)

0.001

Intensive care unit length of stay in days

16 (8–28)

9 (5–17)

10 (6–20)

0.001

Hospital length of stay in days

28 (17–29)

23 (14–28)

25 (15–29)

0.01

Mortality at 28 days

47 (28.3%)

157 (28.1%)

204 (28%)

0.9

Parenthetical values indicate range or percentage. APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; MODS, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score.

Table 5

Nutritional parameters in patients with and without liver dysfunction

 

With liver dysfunction

Without liver dysfunction

Total

p

 

166

559

725

 

Weight in kilograms

75 (65–80)

70 (65–80)

72 (65–80)

0.3

Nutritional status

   

0.01

Moderate malnutrition

41 (25%)

84 (15%)

125 (17%)

 

Severe malnutrition

14 (8%)

33 (6%)

47 (7%)

 

Energy requirements per kilogram

25.54 (24.49–30)

25 (23.33–29.41)

25 (23.64–29.74)

0.04

Type of nutrition

   

0.001

   Enteral

75 (18%)

347 (82%)

422

 

   Parenteral

91 (30%)

212 (70%)

303

 

Patients receiving MCT/LCT on TPN

75

158

233

0.2

Days on artificial nutrition

13 (8–25)

8 (4–16)

9 (5–8)

0.001

   Days on EN

7 (1–17)

6 (0–12)

6 (1–13)

0.2

   Days on TPN

5 (0–12)

0 (0–5)

1 (0–7)

0.001

Starting time after ICU admission in days

1 (0.5–2)

1(0–2)

1 (0.2–2)

0.03

Prescribed caloric intake per kilogram on day 1

25 (20.92–29.34)

23.53 (18.75–27.27)

24 (19.3–27.64)

0.01

Administered caloric intake per kilogram on day 1

22.30 (16.88–26.67)

21.43 (16.25–26.15)

21.43 (16.36–26.28)

0.3

Prescribed caloric intake per kilogram on day 3

25 (21.67–30)

24.69 (21.18–28.57)

25 (21.25–29.36)

0.07

Administered caloric intake per kilogram on day 3

23.67 (18.79–28.92)

23.07 (18.70–27.54)

23.14 (18.69–27.99)

0.4

Prescribed caloric intake per kilogram on day 7

26.67 (23.29–30)

25 (20.93–30)

25.66 (21.43–30)

0.06

Administered caloric intake per kilogram on day 7

25 (19.46–29.79)

24.01 (19.85–28.33)

24.31 (19.76–28.61)

0.3

Parenthetical values indicate range or percentage. EN, enteral nutrition; ICU, intensive care unit; MCT/LCT, medium-chain triglyceride/long-chain triglyceride; TPN, total parenteral nutrition.

LD, TPN, and type of patients

In the univariate analysis, 91 patients treated with TPN developed some form of LD but only 75 in the EN group did (odds ratio [OR] 1.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.2) (Table 6). Surgical patients (31% versus 16%; OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.1) and trauma patients (52% versus 23%; OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1 to 4) treated with TPN had more LD. This association was maintained for all types of LD: cholestasis (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.9), liver necrosis (OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.1 to 3.42), and mixed pattern (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.6). The patients with sepsis and TPN showed a higher incidence of LD than the group treated with EN (39% versus 24%; OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.4), although no type of LD was greater in either group. When looking at the time free of LD, EN increased the time free of disease in surgical patients only in the Kaplan-Meyer survival test (Figure 1). Only three patients were diagnosed with acalculous cholecystitis.
Table 6

Incidence of liver dysfunction

 

TPN

EN

Total

p

OR (95% CI)

Overall patients

303

422

725

  

   Liver dysfunction

91 (30%)

75 (18%)

166 (23%)

0.001

1.7 (1.3–2.2)

   Cholestasis

31 (10%)

25 (6%)

56 (8%)

0.03

1.7 (1.04–2.9)

   Hepatic necrosis

28 (9%)

20 (5%)

48 (7%)

0.02

1.95 (1.1–3.4)

   Mixed pattern

56 (19%)

43 (10%)

99 (14%)

0.001

1.8 (1.3–2.6)

   Acalculous cholecystitis

1

2

3

  

Type of patients and liver dysfunction

91

75

166

  

   Medical

24 (23%)

44 (17%)

68 (19%)

0.3

1.2 (0.8–1.7)

   Surgical

55 (31%)

14 (16%)

69 (26%)

0.03

1.8 (1.02–3.1)

   Trauma

12 (52%)

17 (23%)

29 (37%)

0.02

2.1 (1.1–4)

Septic patients

122

86

208

  

   Liver dysfunction

47 (39%)

21 (24%)

68 (33%)

0.03

1.6 (1.02–2.4)

   Cholestasis

17 (14%)

6 (7%)

23 (11%)

0.1

1.9 (0.8–4.9)

   Hepatic necrosis

10 (8%)

3 (4%)

13 (6%)

0.2

2.4 (0.7–8.2)

   Mixed pattern

30 (25%)

14 (16%)

44 (21%)

0.1

1.5 (0.9–2.7)

Non-septic patients

181

336

517

  

   Liver dysfunction

44 (24%)

54 (16%)

98 (19%)

0.02

1.5 (1.06–2.2)

   Cholestasis

14 (8%)

19 (6%)

33 (6%)

0.4

1.4 (0.7–2.7)

   Hepatic necrosis

18 (10%)

17 (5%)

35 (7%)

0.04

2 (1.03–3.7)

   Mixed pattern

26 (14%)

29 (9%)

55 (11%)

0.04

1.7 (1.01–2.7)

CI, confidence interval; EN, enteral nutrition; OR, odds ratio; TPN, total parenteral nutrition.

Figure 1

Time free of liver dysfunction in surgical patients treated with Enteral Nutrition or Total Parenteral Nutrition. EN, enteral nutrition; TPN, total parenteral nutrition; AN days, days on artifical nutrition

Multivariate analysis

The risk factors associated with LD in the multivariate analysis were TPN (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.97, p < 0.001), the early use of artificial nutrition (TPN or EN) the first day after admission (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.4 to 0.9, p < 0.01), MODS (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.2, p < 0.001), and the diagnosis of sepsis on admission (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.9, p < 0.02). The rest of the variables analyzed, such as age, gender, APACHE II score, septic shock on admission, medical patients, surgical patients, mechanical ventilation, the use of MCT/LCT admixtures, or severe malnutrition, did not reach statistical significance in the logistical regression model (Table 7).
Table 7

Logistic regression analysis for liver dysfunction

 

OR

95% CI

p

TPN

1.97

1.3–3

0.002

MODS

1.1

1.04–1.2

0.003

Early artificial nutrition (first day)

0.6

0.4–0.9

0.01

Energy requirements < 25 kcal/kg per day

0.62

0.41–0.94

0.03

Sepsis

1.76

1.08–2.9

0.05

Mechanical ventilation

0.5

0.3–1.07

0.05

Medical patient

0.6

0.3–1.02

0.06

MCT on TPN

1.4

0.9–2.2

0.09

APACHE II score

0.98

0.94–1.01

0.2

Surgical patient

0.6

0.3–1.2

0.2

Severe malnutrition

0.8

0.39–1.7

0.6

Septic shock

1.2

0.6–2.2

0.6

Gender (women)

0.98

0.65–1.48

0.9

Age

0.99

0.98–1.01

0.9

APACHE II, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II; CI, confidence interval; MCT, medium-chain triglyceride; MODS, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score; OR, odds ratio; TPN, total parenteral nutrition.

Discussion

Our study shows that the incidence of LD associated with artificial nutrition in seriously ill patients is low (23%) and is more frequent in patients who received TPN, with sepsis on admission, and when the planned calculated caloric intake was higher than 25 kcal/kg per day. LD is a widely recognized complication associated with the use of artificial nutrition, particularly TPN, with an incidence of between 25% and 100% [12, 13]. Acalculous cholecystitis was diagnosed in only three patients who received TPN, with an incidence of close to the 4% published elsewhere [12].

Multiple factors are related to LD associated with TPN, linked to the type of formulation or the appearance of nutritional deficiencies with the use of TPN [1316]. Some of these factors are shortage of essential fatty acids [17, 18], excessive caloric intake [19], imbalance in the composition of the amino acids [20] or of the non-protein substrates [21], fat deposit in the liver [22], a caloric intake based exclusively on fats [23], a cholestatic effect of the amino acids [24], the absence of choline [25], production of endotoxins and lithocholic acid due to intestinal bacterial overgrowth [26], shortage of carnitine [27], or the absence of enteral nutritional intake [28, 29].

However, few studies examine the risk factors attributable to the clinical state of the patient. The aims of this study were to identify the relationship between the appearance of LD and the use of artificial nutrition and to identify the contributing factors specific to the critically ill patient (severity scores, associated co-morbidity such as sepsis, and mechanical ventilation) which can act as confusion factors. Many studies have demonstrated the superiority of EN over TPN, both in surgical patients [3033] and in patients admitted to the ICU [34, 35]. Our results show that patients who received EN had a lower incidence of LD. Most patients who received EN were medical, were more in need of mechanical ventilation, and had a longer stay in the ICU but showed less LD (18% in the EN group versus 30% in the TPN group). This result is strong enough because we have performed an 'intention to treat analysis,' and the 16% of the patients on EN also received TPN. We have found that other factors, such as previous gastrointestinal surgery or sepsis on admission, can explain the greater incidence of LD shown in the results of our study and in other studies [36, 37].

Our study shows that cholestasis and the mixed pattern are the two most frequent types of LD. The elevations of serum transaminases, alkaline phosphatase, and bilirubin are the changes most often associated with the use of TPN [38, 39]. Although the increase of serum transaminases usually takes place in the first two or three weeks of TPN, it is unusual to observe a significant increase of bilirubin in this period, at least in adult patients [4042]. In many cases, these enzymatic alterations are mild and transient, even without the interruption of TPN, and only occasionally lead to liver steatosis. Fat infiltration and intrahepatic cholestasis are the typical findings in these patients [28, 43, 44]. The progress of this LD is generally self-limiting but can lead to liver failure in a minority of patients [38, 39, 44]. Liver biopsies showed that the predominant finding in patients with enzymatic alterations is liver steatosis [3, 11]. When biopsies are carried out in different periods of time, steatosis is an early and sometimes transient phenomenon, whereas cholestasis is a later finding and generally persists during the TPN. Nevertheless, there are contradictory data between an abnormal level of the hepatic enzymes and steatosis or cholestasis [43, 44]. Interestingly, our data show that the early use of artificial nutrition, TPN or EN, can delay the appearance of any type of LD and can avoid permanent liver damage in these patients.

Another factor that could contribute to the low incidence of LD found in our group is related to the composition of the TPN. There are studies that emphasize the effect of overfeeding on the hepatic metabolism [4547] or suggest that a lipid mixture containing MCTs (MCT/LCT) could decrease the risk of steatosis or liver cholestasis [48]. Our results do not confirm this protective effect of the MCT/LCT lipid admixture. The energy requirements of our patients were calculated at 25 kcal/kg per day. We have noted a significant difference in the administered calories in the TPN group compared with the EN group on the first and third days of follow-up, as well as a larger energy intake administered the first day of nutrition in the group of patients who developed LD. The carbohydrate/fat ratio (60:40) that we used in this study seems to be safe and can prevent the abnormalities in liver tests [49].

Conclusion

Our results show that the patients who developed LD have a characteristic profile in the multivariate analysis. They had a higher MODS on admission, they were septic, and they were treated with TPN. The assessment of multiple organ dysfunction includes among its parameters an LD based on high levels of bilirubin, so this association should be expected. The liver is the key organ in the starting and development of multiple organ dysfunction in the septic patient and plays an essential role by clearing endotoxins, bacteria, and derived vasoactive substances. Sepsis and inflammation can increase the production of cytokines, which are potent inhibitors of bile secretion, and the consequent development of cholestasis that can be enhanced by TPN. Although the negative effects that both TPN and sepsis exert on hepatic metabolism have previously been studied independently, this study shows that there is a greater effect when both conditions, TPN and sepsis, are present. Also, early artificial nutrition seems to exert a beneficial effect. Notwithstanding prevention and treatment measures, the presence of sepsis and multiple organ failure should compel to clinicians to strictly control the caloric intake of seriously ill patients, start artificial nutrition early, and frequently monitor their liver function.

Key messages

  • Critically ill patients on artificial nutrition who developed LD have a characteristic profile: they had a higher MODS score on admission, they were septic, and they were treated with TPN and nutrition was started later.

  • Sepsis and the use of TPN are the most important conditions that increase the incidence of liver failure.

  • Cholestasis and the mixed pattern are the most frequent patterns of LD.

  • Acalculous cholecystitis is an uncommon finding in our patients.

Abbreviations

APACHE II: 

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II

CI: 

confidence interval

EN: 

enteral nutrition

ICU: 

intensive care unit

INR: 

international normalized ratio

IQ: 

interquartile

LCT: 

long-chain triglyceride

LD: 

liver dysfunction

MCT: 

medium-chain triglyceride

MODS: 

Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score

OR: 

odds ratio

TPN: 

total parenteral nutrition.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The following members of the Working Group on Nutrition and Metabolism of the Spanish Society of Critical Care participated in the study: Zabarte M (Hospital Na Sra de Aranzazu, San Sebastián), Bonet Sarís A., Sirvent Calvera JM (Hospital Joseph Trueta, Girona) Farré Viladrich M, Salvadó Salvat J (Hospital Universitari de La Vall D'Hebron, Barcelona), Acosta Escribano JA (Hospital Universitario de Alicante, Alicante), Blesa Malpica A (Hospital Clinico San Carlos, Madrid), Montejo González JC (Med-Surg ICU, Hospital 12 De Octubre, Madrid), Jiménez Jiménez J, Ortiz Leyba C (Hospital Virgen Del Rocio, Sevilla), Cuñat J, Arguedas J (Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia), Abella A, Blanco J (Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Madrid), Sanchez-Izquierdo Riera JA (Trauma ICU, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Madrid), Iturralde Yánez J (Hospital de Navarra), Ruiz Santana S, Peña Morant V (Hospital Universitario Dr Negrín, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria), Morán García V (Hospital de León, León), Albert Bonamusa I (Hospital Del Mar, Barcelona), García de Lorenzo y Mateos A (Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid), Mesejo Arizmendi A. (Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, Valencia), Lander Azcona A (Hospital Virgen del Camino, Pamplona), Sanchez Miralles A (Hospital Universitario De San Juan, Alicante), López Martínez J (Hospital Severo Ochoa, Madrid), Rodríguez A, Serviá L (Hospital Universitari Arnau De Vilanova, Lleida), Tejada Artigas A (Trauma ICU, Hospital Miguel Server, Zaragoza), Martínez García P (Hospital Universitario De Puerto Real, Cadiz), Palacios Rubio V (Hospital Miguel Server, Zaragoza), Jara Clemente F (Hospital Mutua de Terrassa), De La Fuente O'Connor E (Hospital Principe de Asturias, Madrid), Masdeu Eixarch G (Hospital Verge De La Cinta, Tortosa), Fernandez Ortega JF (Hospital Universitario Carlos Haya, Málaga), Casanovas Taltavull M (Hospital General de Igualada, Igualada), Domínguez LA (Hospital Universitario Río Ortega, Valladolid), Rey G (Hospital San Agustin, Aviles), González Ramos T (Hospital Virgen De La Vega, Salamanca), Martín Velasco M (Hospital Universitario La Candelaria, Tenerife), Arteta D (Clínica Asisa Santa Isabel, Sevilla), Macías S (Hospital General de Segovia, Segovia), Ortells Huerta X (Hospital Marina Alta, Alicante), Herrera Morillas F (Hospital Naval San Carlos, Cadiz), Gómez Tello V (Clinica Moncloa, Madrid), Serón Arbeola C (Hospital San Jorge, Huesca), Añón Elizalde JM (Hospital Virgen De La Luz, Cuenca), Fajardo López-Cuervo JJ (Hospital Militar Vigil De Quiñones, Sevilla), Zubillaga S (C.M. ICE, Madrid).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Severo Ochoa
(2)
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Josep Trueta
(3)
Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre
(4)
Intensive Care Unit, Newham University Hospital NHS Trust
(5)
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebró
(6)
Intensive Care Unit, General de Alicante
(7)
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Clínico San Carlos
(8)
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario Doce de Octubre
(9)
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario La Paz
(10)
Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Universitario La Fe

References

  1. ASPEN Board of Directors and the Clinical Guidelines Task Force: Guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2002,26(1 Suppl):1SA-138SA.Google Scholar
  2. Cerra FB: Hypermetabolism, organ failure and metabolic support. Surgery 1987, 101: 1-14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Shattuck KE, Klein GL: Hepatobiliary complications of parenteral nutrition. In Enteral and Tube Feeding. 3rd edition. Edited by: Rombeau JL, Rolandelli RH. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1997:141-156.Google Scholar
  4. Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV, Bernard GR, Sprung CL, Sibbald WJ: Multiple organ dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 1995, 23: 1638-1652. 10.1097/00003246-199510000-00007View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE: APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 1985, 13: 818-829. 10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Conference: Definitions for sepsis and multiple organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. Crit Care Med 1992, 20: 864-874.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Buzby GP, Knox LS, Crosby LO, Eisenberg JM, Haakenson CM, McNeal GE, Page CP, Peterson OL, Reinhardt GF, Williford WO: Study protocol: a randomized clinical trial of total parenteral nutrition in malnourished surgical patients. Am J Clin Nutr 1988,47(2 suppl):366-381.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: Clinical Pathways and Algorithms for Delivery of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Support in Adults. Silver Spring, MD: American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition; 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Montejo JC: Enteral nutrition-related gastrointestinal complications in critically ill patients: a multicenter study. The Nutritional and Metabolic Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units. Crit Care Med 1999, 27: 1447-1453. 10.1097/00003246-199908000-00006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Baker JP, Detsky AS, Wesson DE, Wolman SL, Stewart S, Whitewell J, Langer B, Jeejeebhoy KN: Nutritional assessment: a comparison of clinical judgement and objective measurements. N Engl J Med 1982, 306: 969-972.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonet A, Sánchez Alvarez C, Núñez Ruiz R: Protocolo de nutrición parenteral. In Guias de Practica Clínica en Medicina Intensiva. [Total parenteral nutrition protocol. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Critical Care]. Edited by: Latorre FJ, Ibáñez J. Madrid: Meditex; 1996:1-7.Google Scholar
  12. Quigley EM, Marsh MN, Shaffer JL, Markin RS: Hepatobiliary complications of total parenteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 1993, 104: 286-301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Briones ER, Iber FL: Liver and biliary tract changes and injury associated with total parenteral nutrition: pathogenesis and prevention. J Am Coll Nutr 1995, 14: 219-228.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Meadows N: Monitoring and complications of parenteral nutrition. Nutrition 1998, 14: 806-808. 10.1016/S0899-9007(98)00089-6View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke PJ, Ball MJ, Kettlewell MGW: Liver function tests in patients receiving parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1991, 15: 54-59.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Braxton C, Lowry SF: Parenteral nutrition and liver dysfunction – new insight? JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1995, 19: 3-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. de Pablo MA, Angeles Puertollano M, Álvarez de Cienfuegos G: Immune cell functions, lipids and host natural resistance. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol 2000, 29: 323-328.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Richardson TR, Sgoutas D: Essential fatty acid deficiency in four adult patients during total parenteral nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 1975, 28: 258-263.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Keim NL: Nutritional effectors of hepatic steatosis induced by parenteral nutrition in the rat. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1987, 11: 18-22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Sheldon GF, Petersen SR, Sanders R: Hepatic dysfunction during hyperalimentation. Arch Surg 1978, 113: 504-508.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Buzby G, Mullen JL, Stein TP, Rosato EF: Manipulation of TPN caloric substrate and fatty infiltration of the liver. J Surg Res 1981, 31: 46-54. 10.1016/0022-4804(81)90028-7View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Burke JF, Wolfe RR, Mullany CJ, Mathews DE, Bier DM: Glucose requirements following burn injury. Parameters of optimal glucose infusion and possible hepatic and respiratory abnormalities following excessive glucose intake. Ann Surg 1979, 190: 274-285. 10.1097/00000658-197909000-00002PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Thompson SW: Hepatic toxicity of intravenous fat emulsions. In Fat Emulsions in Parenteral Nutrition. Edited by: Meng HC, Willmore DW. Chicago: American Medical Association; 1976:90-95.Google Scholar
  24. Preisig R, Rennert O: Biliary transport and cholestatic effects of amino acids. Gastroenterology 1977, 73: 1240-1248.Google Scholar
  25. Burt ME, Hanin I, Brennan MF: Choline deficiency associated with total parenteral nutrition. Lancet 1980, 2: 638-639. 10.1016/S0140-6736(80)90301-3View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Fouin-Fontunet H, Le Quernec L, Erlinger S, Lerebours E, Colin R: Hepatic alterations during total parenteral nutrition in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a possible consequence of lithocholate toxicity. Gastroenterology 1982, 82: 932-937.Google Scholar
  27. Penn D, Schmidt-Sommerfeld E, Pascu F: Decreased tissue carnitine concentrations in newborn infants receiving total parenteral nutrition. J Pediat 1981, 98: 976-978. 10.1016/S0022-3476(81)80609-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Zamir O, Nussbaum MS, Bhadra S, Subbiah MT, Rafferty JF, Fischer JE: Effect of enteral feeding on hepatic steatosis induced by total parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1994, 18: 20-25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pallarés R, Sitges-Serra A, Fuentes J: Cholestasis associated with total parenteral nutrition. Lancet 1983, 1: 758-762. 10.1016/S0140-6736(83)92040-8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Pacelli F, Bossola M, Papa V, Malerba M, Modesti C, Sgadari A, Bellantone R, Doglietto GB, Modesti C, EN-TPN Study Group: Enteral vs parenteral nutrition after major abdominal surgery: an even match. Arch Surg 2001, 136: 933-936. 10.1001/archsurg.136.8.933View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Woodcock NP, Zeigler D, Palmer DM, Buckley P, Mitchell CJ, MacFie J: Enteral versus parenteral nutrition: a pragmatic study. Nutrition 2001, 17: 1-12. 10.1016/S0899-9007(00)00576-1View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Borum ML, Lynn J, Zhong Z, Roth K, Connors AF Jr, Desbiens NA, Phillips RS, Dawson NV: The effect of nutritional supplementation on survival in seriously ill hospitalized adults: an evaluation of the SUPPORT data. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000,48(5 suppl):S33-S38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Braga M, Gianotti L, Gentilini O, Parisi V, Salis C, Di Carlo V: Early post-operative enteral nutrition improves gut oxygenation and reduces costs compared with total parenteral nutrition. Crit Care Med 2001, 29: 242-248. 10.1097/00003246-200102000-00003View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Marik PE, Pinsky M: Death by parenteral nutrition. Intensive Care Med 2003,29(6):867-869.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, Drover JW: Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1998, 280: 2013-2019. 10.1001/jama.280.23.2013View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Hirata K, Ikeda S, Honma T, Mitaka T, Furuhata T, Katsuramaki T, Hata F, Mukaiya M: Sepsis and cholestasis: basic findings in the sinusoid and bile canaliculus. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2001, 8: 20-26. 10.1007/s005340170047View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Pallarés R, Sitges-Serra A, Fuentes J, Jaurrieta E, Guardia J, Fernández-Nogués F, Sitges-Creus A: Factores etiopatogénicos posiblemente implicados en la disfunción hepática asociada a la nutrición parenteral: estudio prospectivo de 104 pacientes adultos. [Etiopathogenic factors possibly implicated in hepatic dysfunction associated with parenteral nutrition: prospective study of 104 adult patients]. Med Clin (Barc) 1984, 83: 832-836.Google Scholar
  38. Buchman A: Total parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2002, 26: S43-S48.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sandhu IS, Jarvis C, Everson GT: Total parenteral nutrition and cholestasis. Clin Liver Dis 1999, 3: 489-508. 10.1016/S1089-3261(05)70082-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Cavicchi M, Beau P, Crenn P, Degott C, Messing B: Prevalence of liver disease and contributing factors in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition for permanent intestinal failure. Ann Intern Med 2000, 132: 525-532.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Spiliotis JD, Kalfarentzos F: Total parenteral nutrition-associated liver dysfunction. Nutrition 1994, 10: 255-260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Angelico M, Della Guardia P: Review article: hepatobiliary complications associated with total parenteral nutrition. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000,14(suppl 2):54-57. 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2000.014s2054.xView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Morán Penco JM, Salas Martinez J, Maciá Botejara E: ¿Qué sucede en el hígado durante la alimentación artificial? [What happens with the liver during artificial feeding]. Nutr Hosp 2001, 16: 145-151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Sax HC, Talamini MA, Brackett K, Fisher JE: Hepatic steatosis in total parenteral nutrition: failure of fatty infiltration to correlate with abnormal serum hepatic enzyme levels. Surgery 1986, 100: 697-704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pallarés R, Sancho S, Sitges-Serra A, Jaurrieta E, Cañadas E, Guardia J, Fernández-Nogués F, Sitges-Creus A: Estudio clínico-morfológico de la disfunción hepática asociada a la nutrición parenteral en adultos: a propósito de 15 casos. [Clinico-morphologic study of hepatic dysfunction associated with parenteral nutrition in adults: apropos of 15 cases]. Med Clin (Barc) 1984, 83: 837-841.Google Scholar
  46. Grant JP, Cox CE, Kleinman LM, Maher MM, Pittman MA, Tangrea JA, Brown JH, Gross E, Beazley RM, Jones RS: Serum hepatic enzyme and bilirubin elevations during parenteral nutrition. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1977, 145: 573-580.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Buchmiller CE, Kleiman-Wexler RL, Ephgrave KS, Booth B, Hensley CE 2nd: Liver dysfunction and energy source: results of a randomized clinical trial. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 1993, 17: 301-306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Chandra S, Mehendale HM: Nutritional modulation of the final outcome of hepatotoxic injury by energy substrates: a hypothesis for the mechanism. Med Hypotheses 1996, 46: 261-268. 10.1016/S0306-9877(96)90253-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Carpentier YA, Dubois DY, Siderova VS, Richelle M: Exogenous lipids and hepatic function. In Organ Metabolism and Nutrition: Ideas for Future Critical Care. Edited by: Kinney JM, Tucker HN. New York: Raven Press, Ltd; 1994:349-367.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Grau et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2007

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.