Op001 a Randomised Controlled Trial of Early Enteral Nutrition Versus Standard Management for Patients Undergoing Major Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancy - A Comparison of Costs

Barlow, Rachael; Price, P.

doi:10.1016/s1744-1161(10)00003-7

Clinical Nutrition Supplements

2010

DOI: 10.1016/s1744-1161(10)00003-7

|View full text |Cite

Op001 a Randomised Controlled Trial of Early Enteral Nutrition Versus Standard Management for Patients Undergoing Major Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancy - A Comparison of Costs

Rachael Barlow¹,

P. Price²

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2010

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) by Barlow et al . ( 3 ) concluded that the use of EEN reduced length of hospital stay (LOHS) by 3 days (16 versus 20 days; P <0.05) and improved clinical outcomes. It is assumed that patients who have a reduced LOHS decrease healthcare expenditure ( 4 ) .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised controlled trial of early enteral nutrition versus standard management for patients undergoing major resection for upper gastrointestinal malignancy – a comparison of costs

Barlow¹,

Price

Lewis

et al. 2010

Proc. Nutr. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In today's economic climate with a focus on limiting public spending, the provision of effective and efficient care has never been more important. Traditional management of patients post-operatively has typical involved a period of nil by mouth (1) ; however, early enteral nutrition (EEN) has become increasingly popular over recent years (2) . A Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) by Barlow et al.(3) concluded that the use of EEN reduced length of hospital stay (LOHS) by 3 days (16 versus 20 days; P < 0.05) and improved clinical outcomes. It is assumed that patients who have a reduced LOHS decrease healthcare expenditure (4) . The aim of this study was to determine the costs of two differing treatment arms of an RCT; the use of EEN and traditional management which relied on a period of nil by mouth and intravenous fluid therapy.This was a prospective, RCT recruiting consecutive patients who were admitted between 2004 and 2006 for major re-sectional surgery for UGI malignancy. All patients entered into the study gave their informed written consent pre-operatively. Patients were randomised to either immediate post-operative EEN via a needle catheter jejunostomy or traditional management of nil by mouth for 5-7 days. The costs of the differences in length of hospital stays, and the costs of treating the statistically significant different major complications were calculated for both groups. All other costs attributed to the development of non-significant complications were assumed to be similar for the two randomised groups.Ninety-six patients were studied, 54 patients in the EEN group and 42 patients in the traditional group. The total costs of treating the significantly higher level of complications in the standard group were £29 965.80-£179 151.24. This equates to £713.47-£4265.51 per patient in the standard group. The major contributor to this cost is the expenditure associated with treating the patients who developed anastomotic leaks. These patients remained in hospital for a total of 142 additional days as a result of this major complication. This averaged 3.4 days for every patient in the standard group. The cost of treating major complications in the enteral nutrition group was £4480-£13 680. This equates to £82.30 to £253.33 per patient in the enteral nutrition group. Once again the variation in costs is attributed to the cost of treating the one patient who developed an anastomotic leak in the enteral nutrition group. The cost difference of treating the major complications between the groups was £631.17 to £4012.18, if enteral nutrition was used. The total costs for both LOHS and major complications are summarised in the Table below. This study has indicated that the use of EEN when compared to traditional management, improves clinical outcome, reduces LOHS and could provide a cost benefit in the region of £650-£4000 per patient.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A randomised controlled trial of early enteral nutrition versus standard management for patients undergoing major resection for upper gastrointestinal malignancy – a comparison of costs

Barlow¹,

Price

Lewis

et al. 2010

Proc. Nutr. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

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.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Op001 a Randomised Controlled Trial of Early Enteral Nutrition Versus Standard Management for Patients Undergoing Major Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancy - A Comparison of Costs

Cited by 1 publication

References 0 publications

A randomised controlled trial of early enteral nutrition versus standard management for patients undergoing major resection for upper gastrointestinal malignancy – a comparison of costs

A randomised controlled trial of early enteral nutrition versus standard management for patients undergoing major resection for upper gastrointestinal malignancy – a comparison of costs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About