An estimated 60% of pediatric oncology patients experience malnutrition during cancer therapy. Initiation of enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) are interventions aimed at maintaining and promoting growth. Limited literature addressing perceptions of nutrition support methods exists. To develop effective guidelines on nutrition education, it is important to understand perceptions regarding nutrition support. The purpose of this pilot study was to describe perceptions of pediatric oncology patients and parents regarding the use of EN and PN and identify influencing variables. A convenience sample of pediatric oncology patients and parents were surveyed at a large Midwestern children's hospital. The majority of those surveyed chose PN over EN if they or their child were unable to eat or maintain their nutritional status. Perceptions may be influenced by comfort, ease of nutrition or medication administration, experience, health care team's recommendation, choice, and image. This study provides health care professionals an initial opportunity to understand perceptions of EN and PN, which may provide a foundation for a multi-institutional study and enhance patient and family education.
One of the most common side effects of medical treatment for patients with an oncologic diagnosis is malnutrition. There is limited research that broadly assesses the perceptions of health care providers (HCPs) regarding nutrition support in the pediatric population. The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of nutrition support among pediatric oncology and hematopoietic stem cell transplant HCPs. The study used a cross-sectional descriptive design using a 31-item survey. Results of the survey indicated that nurses were more likely to initiate conversations about nutrition support during the first month of diagnosis, while midlevel providers and physicians initiated discussions in response to a change in nutritional status evidenced by decreased oral intake or weight loss. Participants reported resistance by patients and families more often for enteral nutrition compared with parenteral nutrition. Findings suggest a need to develop a more unified service line-based approach for initiating discussions related to nutrition support that incorporate patient and family perceptions.
CNS involvement in Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) has been reported in 63-73% of children at diagnosis [Haddad et al. (1997); Blood 89: 794-800; Horne et al. (2008); Br J Haematol 140: 327-335]. Patients can present with neurologic symptoms, abnormal CSF cytology, abnormal neuro-imaging, or a combination of these findings. CNS involvement is usually associated with a poor prognosis and increased mortality. The 3 year overall survival is 44% in patients with CNS involvement compared to 67% in patients without CNS involvement at diagnosis [Horne et al. (2008); Br J Haematol 140: 327-335]. We describe a treatment strategy employing systemic dexamethasone to control CNS disease in a patient with familial HLH and persistent CNS disease post Bone Marrow Transplant.
4306
VOD is a serious and potentially life-threatening complication of HPCT as a result of liver injury from the effect of chemotherapy and/or radiation. The reported incidence rate in pediatric HPCT patients varies widely from 5% to 40%. Previous studies have shown the beneficial effects of post-transplant pharmacological therapies such as ursodeoxyholic acid (ursodiol), heparin, and defibrotide at preventing VOD. However, the combined effect of heparin and ursodiol prophylaxis in preventing VOD in pediatric patients has yet to be determined. This study evaluated retrospectively whether there was a benefit of such combined therapy in pediatric HPCT patients. Our center adopted as standard practice for all HPCT patients the initiation of low dose heparin at 4 units/kg/hour with the commencement of conditioning for HPCT until day +28 post transplant. In 2003, we combined ursodiol 10 mg/kg TID to start with HPCT conditioning and to continue until day + 100 post transplant with low dose heparin through day + 28 for all pediatric HPCT patients. We performed a retrospective chart review and compared the characteristics and the incidence of VOD in patients who underwent transplantation from 1996-2002 and received heparin alone compared to 2003-2008 when the patients received the combination of heparin and ursodiol prophylaxis. Patients were identified through medical records with the ICD diagnosis of VOD. The medical records were reviewed and those patients who did not meet the Baltimore criteria for the diagnosis of VOD were excluded. Only patients who developed VOD with their first transplants were included.
Group I = Heparin (216) Group II = Heparin + Ursodiol (220) Allogeneic 187 (86.5%) 160 (72.7%) Autologous 29 (13.5%) 60 (27.3%) Median Age 9 yrs 8 yrs Male 123 (57%) 135 (62%) Female 93 (43%) 85 (38%) Non-malignant 34 (15.7%) 50 (22.8%) Hematologic malignancy 143 (66.2%) 109 (49.5%) Non-hematologic malignancy 39 (18.1%) 61 (27.7%) # VOD 13 5
The 100 day incidence of VOD was 0.0605 (SE 0.01618) in group 1 and 0.0227 (SE 0.01002) in group 2. The difference is 0.0377 (SE 0.0190) and based on a standard normal distribution with a p = 0.0473. The estimated risk of VOD for patients receiving Heparin + Ursodiol is 0.94 (risk or hazard ratio) that of the risk with Heparin alone, with a 95% confidence interval of (0.918, 0.960). This represents about a 6% reduction in risk for those receiving Heparin + Ursodiol. The day 100 survival in the VOD patients was 6 out of 13 in group 1 and 3 out of 5 in group 2. In conclusion, low dose heparin and ursodiol prophylaxis appears to be an effective strategy in VOD prevention in pediatric patients. The combination appeared to be more effective than heparin alone. However, this study is limited in that it is retrospective in nature.
Disclosures:
Off Label Use: heparin and ursodiol as VOD prophylaxis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.