Franny Jongbloed

171 7 FEASIBILITY AND SAFETY OF A PREOPERATIVE DIET Twenty patients were randomized into the control group. Nine out of 10 donors (90%) filled in the diary for five consecutive days, while seven out of 10 (70%) morbidly obese patients filled in the diary. An analysis of the dietary diaries was performed to calculate average percentages of protein, carbohydrate and fat-intake. Nine patients in the control group had complete filled-in diaries and were included in the analysis. Average nutrient content consisted of 18% protein, 48% carbohydrates and 34% fat. DISCOMFORT DURING THE DIETARY INTERVENTIONS No major side effects were reported during or after the dietary interventions. Twentyout of 28 individuals (71%) receiving the restricteddiet reported35 instances ofminor discomfort that resolved during or directly after finishing the diet (Figure 1). In general, the shake drinks were well tolerated and were reported to be palatable. A higher percentage of kidney donors (40%) than morbidly obese patients (20%) reported discomfort related to nutritional intake, e.g., hunger and appetite. In contrast, a higher percentage of morbidly obese patients (90%) than kidney donors (20%) reported gastrointestinal discomfort, e.g., stool change, nausea, stomachache and dyspepsia. Three out of eight patients whom did not complete the diet mentioned gastrointestinal discomfort as the main reason. Of patients on the DER-diet, 13 out of 20 (65%) reported 26 instances of minor discomfort during the diet. Kidney donors reported mostly gastrointestinal discomfort (90%), while the morbidly obese reported gastrointestinal discomfort (50%) and discomfort related to nutritional intake, such as distaste and appetite (50%). Discomfort was scored semi-quantitatively using the VAS questionnaires at time points before, during, and after the diet. Patients that completed the restricted diet had significantly higher levels of nausea ( P= 0.009) and decreased wellbeing ( P= 0.02) during the diet than before the diet (Figure 2). These scores returned to baseline on day 1 after finishing the diet. There were no differences in pain scores at the three time points. Those on the DER-diet also reported higher nausea scores during the intervention ( P= 0.04). No differences were seen for the pain scores before, during, and after the diet for either dietary intervention, no changes were reported in the control group.