Metabolism of Proteins and Amino Acids in Critical Illness: From Physiological Alterations to Relevant Clinical Practice.

The clinical impact of nutrition therapy in critically ill patients has been known for years, and relevant guidelines regarding nutrition therapy have emphasized the importance of proteins. During critical illness, such as sepsis or the state following major surgery, major trauma, or major burn injury, patients suffer from a high degree of stress/inflammation, and during this time, metabolism deviates from homeostasis. The increased degradation of endogenous proteins in response to stress hormones is among the most important events in the acute phase of critical illness. Currently published evidence suggests that adequate protein supplementation might improve the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. The role of sufficient protein supplementation may even surpass that of caloric supplementation. In this review, we focus on relevant physiological alterations in critical illness, the effects of critical illness on protein metabolism, nutrition therapy in clinical practice, and the function of specific amino acids.

Different surgical outcome and follow-up status between dMMR and pMMR colorectal cancer patients who fulfilled with Amsterdam-II criteria.

BACKGROUND: Although hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) could be subtyped into proficient or deficient mismatch repair gene expression (pMMR or dMMR), distinct clinical features between these two subgroups patients were rarely reported. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 175 hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) patients between January 1995 and December 2012. Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the differences between two subgroups. RESULTS: Significant differences of disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) exist between dMMR and pMMR. In addition to other factors including younger mean age of diagnosis for dMMR patients (48.6 years vs. 54.3 years), operation type (more extended colectomy for dMMR 35.8% vs. 14.5%), tumor location (right colon predominance for dMMR 61.7% vs. 27.3% and more rectum cases for pMMR 41.8% vs. 11.7%), tumor differentiation (more poor differentiation for dMMR 23.3% vs. 9.0%), N staging (more N0 cases for dMMR 70.8% vs. 50.9%), more frequently presence of extra-colonic tumors for dMMR (16.7% vs.1.8%), and lower recurrence rates (9.1% vs.35.3%). Significantly different cumulative incidences of developing metachronous colorectal cancer were observed with 6.18 for pMMR patients and 20.57 person-years for dMMR patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Distinct clinicopathological features significantly exist between dMMR and pMMR subtypes patient, MMR status should be consider to tailor operation types and follow up surveillance between these two subgroups patients who all fulfilled with Amsterdam-II criteria.