Andressa dos Santos Pinto

ESTIMATING BASAL ENERGY EXPENDITURE IN LIVER TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS: THE VALUE OF THE HARRIS-BENEDICT EQUATION

ABSTRACT Background: Reliable measurement of basal energy expenditure (BEE) in liver transplant (LT) recipients is necessary for adapting energy requirements, improving nutritional status and preventing weight gain. Indirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard for measuring BEE. However, BEE may be estimated through alternative methods, including electrical bioimpedance (BI), Harris-Benedict Equation (HBE), and Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation (MSJ) that carry easier applicability and lower cost. Aim: To determine which of the three alternative methods for BEE estimation (HBE, BI and MSJ) would provide most reliable BEE estimation in LT recipients. Methods: Prospective cross-sectional study including dyslipidemic LT recipients in follow-up at a 735-bed tertiary referral university hospital. Comparisons of BEE measured through IC to BEE estimated through each of the three alternative methods (HBE, BI and MSJ) were performed using Bland-Altman method and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Results: Forty-five patients were included, aged 58±10 years. BEE measured using IC was 1664±319 kcal for males, and 1409±221 kcal for females. Average difference between BEE measured by IC (1534±300 kcal) and BI (1584±377 kcal) was +50 kcal (p=0.0384). Average difference between the BEE measured using IC (1534±300 kcal) and MSJ (1479.6±375 kcal) was -55 kcal (p=0.16). Average difference between BEE values measured by IC (1534±300 kcal) and HBE (1521±283 kcal) was -13 kcal (p=0.326). Difference between BEE estimated through IC and HBE was less than 100 kcal for 39 of all 43patients. Conclusions: Among the three alternative methods, HBE was the most reliable for estimating BEE in LT recipients.

DIETARY MANAGEMENT FOR DYSLIPIDEMIA IN LIVER TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS

ABSTRACT Background: Dyslipidemia occurs in approximately 70% of all liver transplant (LT) recipients, and no prior control studies have demonstrated any dietary intervention to change it. Aim: To analyze the effects of a dietary intervention on the lipid profile of dyslipidemic LT recipients. Methods: All LT recipients with dyslipidemia on clinical follow-up were enrolled. Anthropometric evaluation, food history, body composition (bioimpedance) and assessment of basal metabolism through indirect calorimetry were performed. Patients met with a dietitian and an individualized diet based on estimate of basal metabolism and consisting of 25% of the total energy value in total fat and <200 mg/day of cholesterol was prescribed. Total cholesterol (TC), HDL-cholesterol (HDL), LDL-cholesterol (LDL), triglycerides (TG) and anthropometric measures were measured at baseline and six months after intervention. Results: Fifty-thee out of 56 patients concluded follow-up; age was 59±10 years; 29 were men (51.8%). The analysis pre- and post-intervention were, respectively: TC 238.9±30 and 165.1±35, p<0.001; LDL 154±33 and 90±29, p<0.001; and TG 168 (IQR=51-200) and 137 (IQR=94-177), p=<0.001. They were all modified at six months following intervention. At baseline, none of the patients had normal TC, and only 12 (22.7%) had optimal/near optimal LDL. Following dietary intervention, 45 patients (84.9%) reached normal TC and 50 (94.4%) had optimal/near optimal LDL. HDL and anthropometric measures were not modified. Conclusions: Dietary counseling with prescription of individualized diet based on estimate of basal metabolism through indirect calorimetry was able to manage dyslipidemia in most LT recipients; so, all dyslipidemic LT recipients must be enrolled on a dietary program.