In the nutritional management of digestive disorders, it is important to know the relative secretory and metabolic responses to enteral and parenteral feeding. Twenty-seven healthy volunteers were studied while receiving either oral drinks or duodenal infusions of a complex formula diet, duodenal or intravenous infusions of elemental (protein as free amino acids, low fat) formulae, or saline. Pancreaticobiliary secretory responses were measured by nasoduodenal polyethylene glycol perfusion and aspiration, while monitoring blood hormone and nutrient levels. Diets were matched for protein (1.5 g x kg(-1) x d(-1)) and energy (40 kcal x kg(-1) x d(-1)). Compared with placebo, all oroenteral diets stimulated amylase, lipase, trypsin, and bile acid secretion and increased plasma concentrations of gastrin and cholecystokinin, whereas intravenous feeding did not. The complex formula produced a similar response whether given as drinks or duodenal infusions. Changing the duodenal formula to elemental reduced enzyme secretion by 50%, independently of CCK. Higher increases in plasma insulin, glucose, and amino acids were noted with intravenous feeding. Delivering food directly to the intestine by a feeding tube does not reduce pancreaticobiliary secretion. Enteral "elemental" formulae diminish, but only intravenous feeding avoids pancreatic stimulation. Intravenous administration impairs metabolic clearance.

No abstract

Early perfusion imaging and serial cTnI have comparable sensitivities for identifying myocardial infarction. Perfusion imaging identified more patients who underwent revascularization or who had significant coronary disease, but it had lower specificity. The 2 tests can provide complementary information for identifying patients at risk for ACS.

Increased cTnI values are associated with worse outcomes. Although low cTnI values are associated with adverse events, they do not have the same implication as higher cTnI values, and nonischemic evaluations are frequent.

Background: Homogeneous LDL-cholesterol methods from Genzyme, Reference Diagnostics, Roche, and Sigma were evaluated for precision, accuracy, and specificity for LDL in the presence of abnormal lipoproteins. Methods: Each homogeneous method was performed by a Roche/Hitachi 911 according to the vendors’ instructions, and the results were compared with the β-quantification reference method. We measured precision over 20 days using quality-control and frozen serum specimens. Sera from 100 study participants, including 60 with hyperlipidemias, were assayed by each method. Accuracy was evaluated from regression and total error analysis. Specificity was evaluated from the bias (as a percentage) vs concentration of triglycerides. Results: The total CV was <2% for all methods. Regression slope and intercept (with 95% confidence intervals) were as follows: Genzyme, 0.955 (0.92 to 0.99) and 30.3 (−12 to 73) mg/L; Reference Diagnostics, 0.975 (0.93 to 1.02) and −8 (−63 to 47) mg/L; Roche, 1.067 (1.02 to 1.11) and −101 (−161 to −42) mg/L; and Sigma, 0.964 (0.91 to 1.02) and 164 (89 to 239) mg/L. The percentages of individual results with >12% bias were as follows: Genzyme, 8.0%; Reference Diagnostics, 11.0%; Roche, 10.0%; and Sigma, 30.0%. Total error calculated from mean systematic bias and all-sources random bias was as follows: Genzyme, 12.6%; Reference Diagnostics, 16.5%; Roche, 41.6%; and Sigma, 38.3%. Slopes of bias (as a percentage) vs triglycerides were P <0.001 for all methods except the Roche method, which was P = 0.094. Conclusions: The evaluated methods show nonspecificity toward abnormal lipoproteins, thus compromising their ability to satisfy the National Cholesterol Education Program goal for a total error of <12%. These homogeneous LDL-cholesterol results do not improve on the performance of LDL-cholesterol calculated by the Friedewald equation at triglyceride concentrations <4000 mg/L.