EFFECT OF DIETARY PROTEIN INTAKE ON PRESSURE SORE HEALING AND NUTRITIONAL STATUS IN NURSING HOME SUBJECTS.
Contributors: University of Maryland, College Park.
Published: 1990
Number of pages: 129
Subjects: Health Sciences, Nutrition.; Health Sciences, Medicine and Surgery.; Gerontology.
Description: To determine the effect of dietary protein on healing of pressure sores in malnourished nursing home residents, 30 subjects (mean age 74 y), 14 on air-fluidized beds (AFB) and 16 on regular beds (RB), received high calorie liquid diets containing either 14% (n = 13) or 24% (n = 17) of total calories as protein. The formulas were fed as complete tubefeedings or meal supplements.

Study I. This study compared the baseline nutritional status of a subset of 14 tubefed subjects with pressure sores to 12 tubefed controls without pressure sores. The tubefed subjects were significantly more hypoalbuminemic (p $<$.05) and anemic (p $<$.05) than the tubefed controls. Tubefed subjects with stage IV (severe) sores were significantly more hypocholesterolemic than those with stage II/III (mild to moderate) sores (p $<$.05).

Study II. In 30 subjects with pressure sores, sore surface area correlated negatively with serum albumin (p $<$.01), serum cholesterol (p $<$.001), hemoglobin (p $<$.001) and total lymphocyte count (p $<$.05). During 8 weeks of dietary intervention protein intake was significantly greater in subjects fed the 24% protein formula than in those fed the 14% protein formula in subjects on AFB (p $<$.05) but not in subjects on RB. Within AFB, there were no improvements in relative (log transformed) sore surface area or serum proteins on the 14% versus 24% protein diets. However, serum cholesterol improved in tubefed compared to orally fed subjects (p $<$.03).

In a non-parametric analysis, subjects with stage IV sores on AFB and RB were combined. Both absolute sore size and serum albumin improved significantly (p $<$.05) in subjects in the 24% protein category compared to subjects in the 14% protein category (p $<$.05). However, since protein intake in the 14% and 24% categories was not significantly different (1.4 $\pm$ 0.2 vs 1.8 $\pm$ 0.3 g protein/kg, p $<$.30), the improvement may have been due to nutritional factors other than protein or to changes in medical condition.
Notes: Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 51-05, Section: B, page: 2291.

Thesis (PH.D.)--UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK, 1990.

School code: 0117.