Safe Threshold Rate of Indocyanine Green Retention and Intervention of Nutrition Management After Hepatectomy.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 NUTRITION & DIETETICS Nutrition and Cancer-An International Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-21 DOI:10.1080/01635581.2024.2431348
Junping Gao, Zhan Lu, Wanqiang Liang, Jie Zhang, Shangdong Qin, Juntao Huang, Wenfeng Gong, Bangde Xiang
{"title":"Safe Threshold Rate of Indocyanine Green Retention and Intervention of Nutrition Management After Hepatectomy.","authors":"Junping Gao, Zhan Lu, Wanqiang Liang, Jie Zhang, Shangdong Qin, Juntao Huang, Wenfeng Gong, Bangde Xiang","doi":"10.1080/01635581.2024.2431348","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study investigated the safe indocyanine green retention rate at the 15-minute (ICG-R15) threshold for hepatectomy and the effect of nutritional management on ICG-R15 and posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 70 hepatectomy patients with chronic liver disease, divided into routine care and nutrition intervention groups. ICG-R15 was measured pre- and postoperatively, along with PHLF occurrence and other health metrics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy patients with chronic liver disease were divided into two groups: one received routine care, while the other followed a nutrition plan based on Omaha theory. The intervention group showed a significantly lower incidence of PHLF (15.8% vs 41.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.009) and clinically relevant PHLF (5.3% vs 19.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.031), along with shorter hospital stays (11.3 ± 6.4 days vs 21.5 ± 15.5 days, <i>p</i> = 0.012) and fewer complications (26.3% vs 47.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.020). The optimal ICG-R15 threshold for predicting PHLF was 4.5%, with 8.5% being critical.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ICG-R15 is a reliable predictor of PHLF, with 4.5% being safe and 8.5% critical. Nutritional management based on Omaha theory improves outcomes and quality of life. Further validation is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":54701,"journal":{"name":"Nutrition and Cancer-An International Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nutrition and Cancer-An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01635581.2024.2431348","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study investigated the safe indocyanine green retention rate at the 15-minute (ICG-R15) threshold for hepatectomy and the effect of nutritional management on ICG-R15 and posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF).

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 70 hepatectomy patients with chronic liver disease, divided into routine care and nutrition intervention groups. ICG-R15 was measured pre- and postoperatively, along with PHLF occurrence and other health metrics.

Results: Seventy patients with chronic liver disease were divided into two groups: one received routine care, while the other followed a nutrition plan based on Omaha theory. The intervention group showed a significantly lower incidence of PHLF (15.8% vs 41.2%, p = 0.009) and clinically relevant PHLF (5.3% vs 19.6%, p = 0.031), along with shorter hospital stays (11.3 ± 6.4 days vs 21.5 ± 15.5 days, p = 0.012) and fewer complications (26.3% vs 47.1%, p = 0.020). The optimal ICG-R15 threshold for predicting PHLF was 4.5%, with 8.5% being critical.

Conclusion: ICG-R15 is a reliable predictor of PHLF, with 4.5% being safe and 8.5% critical. Nutritional management based on Omaha theory improves outcomes and quality of life. Further validation is needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肝切除术后吲哚菁绿潴留的安全阈值率和营养管理干预。
研究目的本研究探讨了肝切除术 15 分钟(ICG-R15)阈值的安全吲哚菁绿保留率,以及营养管理对 ICG-R15 和肝切除术后肝衰竭(PHLF)的影响:对70名慢性肝病肝切除术患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究,分为常规护理组和营养干预组。结果:70 名慢性肝病肝切除术患者分为常规护理组和营养干预组,术前和术后测量 ICG-R15,同时测量 PHLF 发生率和其他健康指标:70名慢性肝病患者被分为两组:一组接受常规护理,另一组遵循基于奥马哈理论的营养计划。干预组的 PHLF 发生率(15.8% vs 41.2%,p = 0.009)和临床相关 PHLF 发生率(5.3% vs 19.6%,p = 0.031)明显降低,住院时间缩短(11.3 ± 6.4 天 vs 21.5 ± 15.5 天,p = 0.012),并发症减少(26.3% vs 47.1%,p = 0.020)。预测 PHLF 的最佳 ICG-R15 阈值为 4.5%,8.5% 为临界值:ICG-R15是预测PHLF的可靠指标,4.5%为安全值,8.5%为临界值。基于奥马哈理论的营养管理可改善预后和生活质量。需要进一步验证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
172
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: This timely publication reports and reviews current findings on the effects of nutrition on the etiology, therapy, and prevention of cancer. Etiological issues include clinical and experimental research in nutrition, carcinogenesis, epidemiology, biochemistry, and molecular biology. Coverage of therapy focuses on research in clinical nutrition and oncology, dietetics, and bioengineering. Prevention approaches include public health recommendations, preventative medicine, behavior modification, education, functional foods, and agricultural and food production policies.
期刊最新文献
Coconut Milk Consumption and Breast Cancer Risk in Thai Women: A Case-Control Study. Association Between Sarcopenia, Clinical Outcomes, and Survival in Patients with Extensive-Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated with First-Line Immunochemotherapy: A Prospective Cohort Study. CT Derived Measurement of Body Composition: Observations from a Comparative Analysis of Patients with Colorectal and Lung Cancer. Early Oral Feeding is Safe and Comfortable in Patients with Gastric Cancer Undergoing Radical Total Gastrectomy. Impact of the Combination of Anamorelin and Rehabilitation on Functional and Nutritional Outcomes in Patients with Cancer Cachexia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1