Fatal Effects of a Neonatal High-Protein Diet in Low-Birth-Weight Piglets Used as a Model of Intrauterine Growth RestrictionJamin A.a, b · D’Inca R.a, b · Le Floc’h N.a, b · Kuster A.c · Orsonneau J.-L.d · Darmaun D.e · Boudry G.a, b · Le Huërou-Luron I.a, b · Sève B.a, b · Gras-Le Guen C.c
aINRA, UMR1079, SENAH, bAgrocampus Ouest, UMR1079, Rennes, cRéanimation Pédiatrique, Hôpital Mère Enfant, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, dLaboratoire de Biochimie, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, and eINRA, UMR1280, Physiologie des Adaptations Nutritionnelles, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Nantes, France
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background: Although full-term infants suffering intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) are routinely fed high-protein (HP) formulas to ensure catch-up growth, the effects of HP intake are poorly understood. An IUGR piglet model provides an opportunity to investigate these effects. Methods and Results: Twelve IUGR piglets were artificially fed HP formulas (50% more protein in comparison to sow milk) from the 2nd day of life (d2) until d28. Unexpectedly, all HP piglets developed poor growth, severe hypotonia and polypnea between d10 and d16. One third died spontaneously. This syndrome was investigated to understand its pathophysiology and to adopt a strategy to restore health. Blood and urine biochemistry and amino acid concentrations were investigated in 10 HP piglets and 8 piglets that were fed a normal-protein (NP) formula. In comparison to NP piglets, HP piglets showed significant hypokalemia (2.7 ± 0.6 vs. 3.6 ± 0.6 mmol/l; p < 0.01), hypophosphatemia (1.5 ± 0.2 vs. 3.0 ± 0.3 mmol/l; p > 0.01), hypercalcemia (3.0 ± 0.3 vs. 2.5 ± 0.2 mmol/l; p < 0.01), hyperammonemia (365 ± 4 vs. 242 ± 15 µmol/l; p < 0.05), elevated blood urea (6.5 ± 0.4 vs. 1.3 ± 0.4 mmol/l; p < 0.01) and elevated taurine concentrations (50.2 ± 8.5 vs. 17.7 ± 2.7 µmol/l; p < 0.01). Conclusions: These altered parameters indicated inadequate potassium and phosphorus dietary supplies in HP piglets. When the HP formula was supplemented with monocalcium phosphate and monopotassium phosphate (HP-sup), serum biochemistry was normalized in piglets fed this formula (n = 8). This experimental strategy restored growth in IUGR piglets fed HP-sup, without a toxic effect. The current findings suggest that use of an HP formula without a proportional increase in its phosphorus and potassium content induces pathology similar to the refeeding syndrome in IUGR piglets.
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.