Premium
Liquid Enteral Diets Induce Bacterial Translocation by Increasing Cecal Flora without Changing Intestinal Motility
Author(s) -
Haskel Yuval,
Udassin Raphael,
Freund Herbert R.,
Zhang Jian M.,
Hanani Menachem
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.935
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 1941-2444
pISSN - 0148-6071
DOI - 10.1177/014860710102500260
Subject(s) - mesenteric lymph nodes , motility , gastroenterology , cecum , medicine , enteral administration , bacterial overgrowth , liquid diet , stomach , spleen , intestinal motility , lymph , biology , parenteral nutrition , pathology , biochemistry , genetics , ethanol
The aim of this study was to determine the contribution of intestinal motility and cecal bacterial overgrowth to liquid diet‐induced bacterial translocation (BT). Three different commercially available liquid diets were offered to mice for 1 week. BT to the mesenteric lymph nodes (MLN), spleen, and liver were examined as well as cecal bacterial counts and populations, small bowel length and weight, and histopathologic changes in the ileal and jejunal mucosa. In addition, the effect of the various diets on intestinal motility was measured by the transit index of a charcoal mixture introduced into the stomach. The incidence of BT to the mesenteric lymph nodes was significantly and similarly increased (p <.05) in mice fed Vivonex (30%), Ensure (30%), and Osmolite (33%) compared with chow‐fed controls (0%). Compared with chow‐fed controls, all three liquid diets were associated with the development of cecal bacterial overgrowth ( p <.01). There were no significant changes in the transit index for the three liquid diet groups compared with the chow‐fed controls. BT to the MLN was induced by all three liquid diets tested, casting some doubts as to their role in preventing BT in clinical use. BT was associated with a statistically significant increase in cecal bacterial count but was not associated with gut motility changes in this model. In fact, no significant changes in intestinal motility were noted in all groups tested. (Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 25:60–64, 2001)