Assessment of vitamin A status by the deuterated-retinol-dilution technique and comparison with hepatic vitamin a concentration in Bangladeshi surgical patients

89Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Hepatic stores of vitamin A were estimated in 31 Bangladeshi surgical patients (15 males and 16 females) by the deuterated-retinol-dilution (DRD) technique and by analysis of the vitamin A concentration of a liver biopsy specimen obtained daring previously scheduled abdominal surgery. Patients ranged in age from 21 to 65 y and had an average body mass index (BMI; in kg/m2) of 17,7 ± 3,4. They received 0.753 μmol [2H4]retinyl acetate/kg body wt orally 9-11 d before surgery. Hepatic vitamin A reserves were estimated according to Furr et al (Am J Clin Nutr 1989;49:713-6) by using a single plasma isotopic-ratio measurement (18-25 d postdose). Estimated mean hepatic vitamin A stores were similar by both techniques, 0.110 ± 0.072 mmol (by DRD) compared with 0.100 ± 0.067 mmol (by biopsy). Regression analysis was used to compare results of the DRD and biopsy techniques. A significant linear relation was found between the two techniques (r = 0.75, P < 0.0001), and the least-squares regression line was not significantly different from y = x (P = 0.09). The results indicate that the DRD technique provided a very good estimate of hepatic vitamin A reserves for this population. However, a wide prediction interval was observed for estimates of hepatic vitamin A reserves for individual subjects. Thus, further refinement of the prediction model is necessary to improve estimates of hepatic vitamin A reserves for individual subjects.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Haskell, M. J., Handelman, G. J., Peerson, J. M., Jones, A. D., Rabbi, M. A., Awal, M. A., … Brown, K. H. (1997). Assessment of vitamin A status by the deuterated-retinol-dilution technique and comparison with hepatic vitamin a concentration in Bangladeshi surgical patients. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 66(1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/66.1.67

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free