|
|
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
In a controlled trial conducted to assess the biologic value of High Nitrogen Vivonex, we compared this "elemental" diet with predigested protein--Product MJ7041--and with solid food during eight-day balance periods. Each formula was evaluated in three patients with malabsorption and one without it, by measuring apparent absorption of nitrogen and energy, nitrogen balance, and blood and urinary urea nitrogen. Overall energy and nitrogen absorption in the patients with malabsorption was better with either special diet than with solid food; net intestinal uptake of Vivonex tended to be higher but not consistently so in al patients. However, nitrogen balance differed consistently during the three diets; with solid food and MJ7041, retention of absorbed nitrogen was respectively, nine and 16 times greater than with Vivonex. Moreover, institution of each Vivonex period led to a prompt increase in urea nitrogen--a trend quickly reversed by the alternative diets. Although the mechanism for the impairment of nitrogen use caused by High Nitrogen Vivonex is unknown, its low biologic value and tendency to cause azotemia should be kept in mind.
This article has been cited by other articles:
HOME | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | PRIVACY | HELP | beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. |
Previous
