The role of serum and urinary urea in the evaluation of enteral protein intake in adequate and small-for-gestational-age very low birth weight infants

0Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Context and Objective: Very low birth weight (VLBW) infants have special nutritional needs. There is a current tendency to individualize their protein needs. The objective of this study was to determine the suitability of serum and urinary urea as indicators for protein intake in adequate-for-gestational-age (AGA) and small-for-gestational-age (SGA) VLBW infants. Design and Setting: Prospective study in the nursery attached to the Maternity Ward of the "Prof. Pedro das Alcântara" Children's Institute, Hospital das Clinicas, Department of Pediatrics, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. Methods: Seventy-two VLBW infants (mean protein intake = 3.7 mg/kg/day) were enrolled in a prospective cohort study in two groups: AGA (n = 34) and SGA (n = 38). Blood samples, six-hour urine (6hUr) collections and urine sample tests (STUr) were obtained for urea and creatinine assays at three and five weeks of life. Statistical analysis: Student's t test, Pearson correlation and linear regression (p < 0.05). Results: There were no differences between groups for serum urea, 6hUr and STUr, or between two assessments within each group. Serum urea correlated with 6hUr in both AGA and SGA, and to STUr in SGA; 6hUr correlated with STUr in both AGA and SGA. There was no correlation between protein intake and serum or urine urea. Conclusion: Serum and urinary urea did not reflect protein intake when mean intakes of 3.7 g/kg/day were used. Sample tests of urinary urea can be as reliable as urea from urine collected over longer periods.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Darcie, S., & Leone, C. R. (2005). The role of serum and urinary urea in the evaluation of enteral protein intake in adequate and small-for-gestational-age very low birth weight infants. Sao Paulo Medical Journal, 123(6), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1590/s1516-31802005000600002

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