Role of the Gut⁻Liver Axis in Driving Parenteral Nutrition-Associated Injury.

For decades, parenteral nutrition (PN) has been a successful method for intravenous delivery of nutrition and remains an essential therapy for individuals with intolerance of enteral feedings or impaired gut function. Although the benefits of PN are evident, its use does not come without a significant risk of complications. For instance, parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD)-a well-described cholestatic liver injury-and atrophic changes in the gut have both been described in patients receiving PN. Although several mechanisms for these changes have been postulated, data have revealed that the introduction of enteral nutrition may mitigate this injury. This observation has led to the hypothesis that gut-derived signals, originating in response to the presence of luminal contents, may contribute to a decrease in damage to the liver and gut. This review seeks to present the current knowledge regarding the modulation of what is known as the "gut⁻liver axis" and the gut-derived signals which play a role in PN-associated injury.

No Gut No Gain! Enteral Bile Acid Treatment Preserves Gut Growth but Not Parenteral Nutrition-Associated Liver Injury in a Novel Extensive Short Bowel Animal Model.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition (PN) provides nutrition intravenously; however, this life-saving therapy is associated with significant liver disease. Recent evidence indicates improvement in PN-associated injury in animals with intact gut treated with enteral bile acid (BA), chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA), and a gut farnesoid X receptor (FXR) agonist, which drives the gut-liver cross talk (GLCT). We hypothesized that similar improvement could be translated in animals with short bowel syndrome (SBS). METHODS: Using piglets, we developed a novel 90% gut-resected SBS model. Fifteen SBS piglets receiving PN were given CDCA or control (vehicle control) for 2 weeks. Tissue and serum were analyzed posteuthanasia. RESULTS: CDCA increased gut FXR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction; P = .008), but not downstream FXR targets. No difference in gut fibroblast growth factor 19 (FGF19; P = .28) or hepatic FXR (P = .75), FGF19 (P = .86), FGFR4 (P = .53), or Cholesterol 7 α-hydroxylase (P = .61) was noted. PN resulted in cholestasis; however, no improvement was noted with CDCA. Hepatic fibrosis or immunostaining for Ki67, CD3, or Cytokeratin 7 was not different with CDCA. PN resulted in gut atrophy. CDCA preserved (P = .04 vs control) gut mass and villous/crypt ratio. The median (interquartile range) for gut mass for control was 0.28 (0.17-0.34) and for CDCA was 0.33 (0.26-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: We note that, unlike in animals with intact gut, in an SBS animal model there is inadequate CDCA-induced activation of gut-derived signaling to cause liver improvement. Thus, it appears that activation of GLCT is critically dependent on the presence of adequate gut. This is clinically relevant because it suggests that BA therapy may not be as effective for patients with SBS.