Hamadeh M J, Hoffer L J
School of Dietetics and Human Nutrition, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Am J Physiol. 1998 Mar;274(3):E547-53. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1998.274.3.E547.
Urea production rate (Ra) is commonly measured using a primed continuous tracer urea infusion, but the accuracy of this method has not been clearly established in humans. We used intravenous infusions of unlabeled urea to assess the accuracy of this technique in normal, postabsorptive men under the following four different conditions: 1) tracer [13C]urea was infused under basal conditions for 12 h (control); 2) tracer [13C]urea was infused for 12 h, and unlabeled urea was infused from hours 4 to 12 at a rate twofold greater than the endogenous Ra ("step" infusion); 3) tracer [13C]urea was infused for 12 h, and unlabeled urea was infused from hours 4 to 8 ("pulse" infusion); and 4) tracer [13C]urea was infused for 9 h, and unlabeled alanine was infused at a rate of 120 mg.kg-1.h-1 (1.35 mmol.kg-1.h-1) from hours 4 to 9. Urea Ra was calculated using the isotopic steady-state equation (tracer infusion rate/tracer-to-tracee ratio), Steele's non-steady-state equation, and urinary urea excretion corrected for changes in total body urea. For each subject, endogenous urea Ra was measured at hour 4 of the basal condition, and the sum of this rate plus exogenous urea input was considered as "true urea input". Under control conditions, urea Ra at hour 4 was similar to that measured at hour 12. After 8-h step and 4-h pulse unlabeled urea infusions, Steele's non-steady-state equation underestimated true urea input by 22% (step) and 33% (pulse), whereas the nonisotopic method underestimated true urea input by 28% (step) and 10% (pulse). Similar conclusions were derived from the alanine infusion. These results indicate that, although Steele's non-steady-state equation and the nontracer method more accurately predict total urea Ra than the steady-state equation, they nevertheless seriously underestimate total urea Ra for as long as 8 h after a change in true urea Ra.
尿素生成率(Ra)通常采用单次静脉注射并持续输注示踪剂尿素的方法进行测定,但该方法在人体中的准确性尚未得到明确证实。我们通过静脉输注未标记的尿素,在以下四种不同条件下评估该技术在正常、吸收后状态男性中的准确性:1)在基础条件下输注示踪剂[13C]尿素12小时(对照);2)输注示踪剂[13C]尿素12小时,从第4小时至第12小时以高于内源性Ra两倍的速率输注未标记的尿素(“阶梯式”输注);3)输注示踪剂[13C]尿素12小时,从第4小时至第小时8输注未标记的尿素(“脉冲式”输注);4)输注示踪剂[13C]尿素9小时,从第4小时至第9小时以120mg·kg-1·h-1(1.35mmol·kg-1·h-1)的速率输注未标记的丙氨酸。使用同位素稳态方程(示踪剂输注速率/示踪剂与被示踪物的比率)、Steele非稳态方程以及根据全身尿素变化校正的尿尿素排泄量来计算尿素Ra。对于每个受试者,在基础状态的第4小时测量内源性尿素Ra,并将该速率与外源性尿素输入量之和视为“真实尿素输入量”。在对照条件下,第4小时的尿素Ra与第12小时测量的结果相似。在进行8小时阶梯式和4小时脉冲式未标记尿素输注后,Steele非稳态方程分别低估真实尿素输入量22%(阶梯式)和33%(脉冲式),而非同位素方法分别低估真实尿素输入量28%(阶梯式)和10%(脉冲式)。丙氨酸输注也得出了类似的结论。这些结果表明,尽管Steele非稳态方程和非示踪剂方法比稳态方程能更准确地预测总尿素Ra,但在真实尿素Ra发生变化后的长达8小时内,它们仍会严重低估总尿素Ra。