首页> 外文OA文献 >Assessment of postprandial glucose metabolism: conventional dual- vs. triple-tracer method
【2h】

Assessment of postprandial glucose metabolism: conventional dual- vs. triple-tracer method

机译:餐后葡萄糖代谢评估:传统的双示踪与三示踪法

摘要

The dual-tracer method has been used conventionally for assessment of postprandial fluxes, i.e., appearance in plasma of ingested glucose (R(a meal)), endogenous glucose production (EGP), and disposal (R(d)). To quantify the magnitude of errors affecting the calculations and their dependence on model assumptions, this method was assessed and compared with the triple-tracer method, which provides model-independent estimates. For this purpose, the dual-tracer protocol was performed twice in eight normal subjects, with [1-(13)C]glucose to trace ingested glucose and [6,6-(2)H(2)]glucose constantly infused. A third tracer, [6-(3)H]glucose, was infused at variable rates to render the calculation of R(a meal) and EGP virtually model independent. The dual-tracer method analyzed with a one-compartment model performed poorly, since R(a meal) peak was significantly lower and delayed compared with triple-tracer reference, resulting in a significantly lower estimation of the amount of absorbed glucose (9,036 +/- 558 vs. 11,316 +/- 823 micromol/kg, P = 0.0117). EGP showed a paradoxical pattern, with an initial overshoot followed by a rapid decay to negative values, resulting in a significant underestimation of EGP suppression (57 +/- 3 vs. 65 +/- 4%, P = 0.0117). A two-compartment model performed better but did not overcome the limitations of the dual-tracer approach, since the amount of absorbed glucose was still significantly underestimated (10,231 +/- 661 vs. 12,169 +/- 838 micromol/kg, P = 0.0117) and EGP still showed a paradoxical behavior. R(d), estimated from R(a meal) and EGP, was significantly underestimated with the dual-tracer method, irrespective of adopted model. We conclude that three suitably infused tracers are required for accurate assessment of postprandial R(a meal), EGP, and R(d).
机译:通常采用双示踪法评估餐后通量,即血浆中摄入的葡萄糖(R(餐))的外观,内源性葡萄糖的产生(EGP)和处置(R(d))。为了量化影响计算的误差量及其对模型假设的依赖性,对该方法进行了评估并与提供独立于模型的估计的三重示踪法进行了比较。为此,在八名正常受试者中执行了两次示踪剂方案,用[1-(13)C]葡萄糖追踪摄入的葡萄糖,并不断输注[6,6-(2)H(2)]葡萄糖。以可变速率注入了第三种示踪剂[6-(3)H]葡萄糖,以使R(膳食)和EGP的计算实际上与模型无关。用单隔室模型分析的双示踪方法效果较差,因为与三示踪参考值相比,R(餐)峰显着降低并延迟,导致对葡萄糖吸收量的估计显着降低(9,036 + / -558对11,316 +/- 823 micromol / kg,P = 0.0117)。 EGP显示出自相矛盾的模式,最初出现过冲,随后迅速衰减至负值,导致对EGP抑制的估计大大低估(57 +/- 3对65 +/- 4%,P = 0.0117)。两室模型表现更好,但没有克服双示踪方法的局限性,因为吸收的葡萄糖量仍然被大大低估了(10,231 +/- 661 vs. 12,169 +/- 838 micromol / kg,P = 0.0117 )和EGP仍然显示出自相矛盾的行为。从R(a餐)和EGP估算得出的R(d),无论采用哪种模型,都用双示踪法大大低估了。我们得出的结论是,准确评估餐后R(a餐),EGP和R(d)需要使用三种适当注入的示踪剂。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号