Table 1

Comparison of different types of lipids in prevention of IFALD

Author	Lipid formulation used	Population setting	Results
Rayyan et al 63	SMOF vs SOLE	53, neonates	SMOF more hepatoprotective than SOLE
Lam et al 64	SMOF vs SOLE	40, children	SMOF causes less liver damage with long-term use
Diamond et al 65	SMOF vs SOLE	24, infants	Following 8 weeks of use, lower conjugated bilirubin levels seen with SMOF
Gura et al 66	FOLE vs SOLE	18, children	Reversal of cholestasis was nearly 5 times faster with FOLE
Premkumar et al 67	FOLE vs SOLE	97, children	Resolution of cholestasis in a median duration of 40 days with FOLE
Nandivada et al 68	FOLE vs SOLE	30, children	Biochemical improvement of liver disease seen within first year of therapy with FOLE, with improved growth and reduction in PN dependence
Calkins et al 69	FOLE vs SOLE	10, children	Reduced cholestasis in FOLE group compared with SOLE with resolution in 75% by 17 weeks
Wang et al 70	FOLE vs SOLE	48, children	FOLE is effective as rescue strategy in IFALD as it reduces cholestasis, but this is reversed after changing back to SOLE
Matsumoto et al 71	FOLE	7, liver explants	Despite reduction in cholestasis, portal fibrosis persisted
Belza et al 72	FOLE	6, children	Despite reduction in cholestasis, fibrosis persisted with FOLE

FOLE, fish oil lipid emulsion; IFALD, intestinal failure–associated liver disease; PN, parenteral nutrition; SMOF, mixture of soya bean oil, medium-chain triglycerides, olive oil and fish oil; SOLE, soybean oil lipid emulsion.