Outcomes of Cancer and Noncancer Patients On Hpn

Hurley, Roberta S.; Campbell, S.J.; Mirtallo, Jay M.; Wade, Victoria R.; Murphy, Christine

doi:10.1177/011542659000500259

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These high figures are in line with previous studies. Hurley et al reported an overall incidence of 3.5 per treatment year in 15 noncancer IF patients. A report from North America described annual readmission rates of 1.8 and of 2.2 in patients with IBD and MVD, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies with small numbers of IF patients have reported rates of 1-3 admissions per treatment year and have estimated that 4.5%-16% of the total HPS treatment time was spent hospitalized, with a great variation between patient groups. 11,12 A larger study of 224 IF patients found that 31.6% had at least 1 unplanned readmission within 30 days after the initial discharge with HPS; however, only 21.1% were HPS related. 13 It is increasingly appreciated that IF is a heterogeneous condition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Hospitalizations in Patients With Nonmalignant Short‐Bowel Syndrome Receiving Home Parenteral Support

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The objective of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the frequency, duration, and causes of hospitalizations in patients receiving home parenteral support (HPS) due to short‐bowel syndrome (SBS) of nonmalignant causes. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate potential risk factors and hypothesized that patients with the shortest remnant, functional, small bowel—hence, the highest need for HPS—would have the highest incidence of hospitalizations. Methods Patients with nonmalignant SBS who initiated HPS in the period from 1970 to 2016 from the Department of Gastroenterology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark, were included. Information about demography, hospitalizations at the department, and duration of HPS was obtained from the Copenhagen intestinal failure database. Results Patients (n = 331) received HPS for a total of 1409.9 years in the period. Hospitalizations accounted for 6.6% of the time registered as HPS‐dependent. The average patient was hospitalized for 5.7% (range 0%–82%) of the registered HPS days. The incidence of admissions was 2.5 per HPS year. The median length of stay was 7 days (range; 0–387). Catheter‐related complications were the most frequently registered causes of admissions (35.2%), subsequently accounting for 31.3% of the total admission time. A Cox regression of admissions showed no significant influence of the remnant‐bowel anatomy but identified the ability to administer HPS unaided as associated with a significantly reduced hazard. Conclusions This retrospective study illustrated that 6.6% of the provided HPS days were, in fact, spent hospitalized. Since admissions elsewhere were not accounted for, this may be an underestimation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hospitalizations in Patients With Nonmalignant Short‐Bowel Syndrome Receiving Home Parenteral Support

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…PNT should be prescribed only to patients who would clearly benefit from treatment; however, identifying these patients is not easy 7 . Administering PNT to any critically ill patient with perioperative malnutrition or nutrient‐depleting disorders may not be appropriate because of reported deaths associated with the treatment 8 , 9 . The relative ease of prescribing PNT contributes to its excessive use 10…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Administering PNT to any critically ill patient with perioperative malnutrition or nutrient-depleting disorders may not be appropriate because of reported deaths associated with the treatment. 8,9 The relative ease of prescribing PNT contributes to its excessive use. 10 For several years, nutrition therapy (NT) regulations have increased in order to reduce and/or prevent complication risks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Nutrition Quality Control in the Prescription and Administration of Parenteral Nutrition Therapy for Hospitalized Patients

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a series of small retrospective studies of patients receiving home TPN [26][27][28][29][30][31][32], the median survival ranged from 53 to 120 days. More reliable are studies reporting large institutional experiences or data from national registers, or pooling data from several nations.…”

Section: Home En and Tpnmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition in Cancer Patients

Bozzetti

2005

Home Care Enteral Feeding

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before attempting to analyze the potential efficacy of the two different routes of administering nutrients to cancer patients, enteral nutrition (EN) versus total parenteral nutrition (TPN), it should be appreciated that patients who are usually fed via a vein are not the same as those who receive EN. If fact, nowadays, the option for TPN only emerges if a patient is not suitable for EN because his/her gut is not working. Consequently the different effects of EN and TPN cannot be attributed only to the administration route of nutrients, but also to the different basic conditions of these 2 groups of patients.There are, however, some exceptions: at the beginning of the era of artificial nutrition, TPN was more developed than EN probably because the impetus of this new approach relied on an urgent need to solve the problems of patients with intestinal failure. In fact, initially TPN was developed in surgical departments to meet the nutritional requirements of patients with short-bowel syndrome or abdominal catastrophes. This translated into the use of TPN also in patients with a working gut, and finally rendered a comparison between TPN and EN not only possible, but even scientifically rational and ethically acceptable. At this point we were roughly in the 1980s.Another field where TPN and EN are frequently compared is the perioperative setting. Nutritional support in the perioperative period is not nutrition in the traditional meaning of the word: it is the attempt to control the metabolic reaction to surgical trauma and to potentiate the defenses of the patient through the administration of nutrients.The indication for nutritional support in this patient population was questioned for a long time and the simple provision of a saline solution for a few days was usually accepted in many institutions. Consequently in the literature there are studies comparing not only different nutritional regimens and Lochs H, Thomas

show abstract

Outcomes of Cancer and Noncancer Patients On Hpn

Cited by 9 publications

References 12 publications

Hospitalizations in Patients With Nonmalignant Short‐Bowel Syndrome Receiving Home Parenteral Support

Hospitalizations in Patients With Nonmalignant Short‐Bowel Syndrome Receiving Home Parenteral Support

Nutrition Quality Control in the Prescription and Administration of Parenteral Nutrition Therapy for Hospitalized Patients

Efficacy of Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition in Cancer Patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About