Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition · 2015
Comparison of a three-in-one total nutrient mixture with conventional peripheral parenteral nutrition in children.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yi Dae Yong, Yang Hye Ran
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare clinical aspects of the application of three-in-one total nutrient mixture (TNA) for peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) with those of the conventional PPN (cPPN) method of providing short-term parenteral nutrition for pediatric inpatients.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in children from 2 to 18 years old who were hospitalized and underwent PPN administration. We compared clinical aspects of two methods of PPN, cPPN (n=39) and TNA (n=57).
RESULTS: The mean age was 6.5±3.1 years in the cPPN group and 8.2±3.4years in the TNA group (p=0.015). In the TNA group, there was a significantly shorter period between the day of admission and the first day of PPN or oral feeding (p<0.0001 & p<0.0001, respectively).The TNA group also fasted for a shorter period before PN after admission, and the total duration of fasting was also shorter (p<0.0001 & p<0.0001, respectively). The TNA group showed a lower glucose infusion rate and fewer daily administered total calories per weight (p<0.0001 & p=0.001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in the amount of administered amino acids and lipids (p=0.584 & p=0.650, respectively) and PPN-related complications.
CONCLUSIONS: When providing nutrients to hospitalized children who cannot take in enough nutrients via the enteral route, TNA formula may be an easier and faster method than cPPN.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in children from 2 to 18 years old who were hospitalized and underwent PPN administration. We compared clinical aspects of two methods of PPN, cPPN (n=39) and TNA (n=57).
RESULTS: The mean age was 6.5±3.1 years in the cPPN group and 8.2±3.4years in the TNA group (p=0.015). In the TNA group, there was a significantly shorter period between the day of admission and the first day of PPN or oral feeding (p<0.0001 & p<0.0001, respectively).The TNA group also fasted for a shorter period before PN after admission, and the total duration of fasting was also shorter (p<0.0001 & p<0.0001, respectively). The TNA group showed a lower glucose infusion rate and fewer daily administered total calories per weight (p<0.0001 & p=0.001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in the amount of administered amino acids and lipids (p=0.584 & p=0.650, respectively) and PPN-related complications.
CONCLUSIONS: When providing nutrients to hospitalized children who cannot take in enough nutrients via the enteral route, TNA formula may be an easier and faster method than cPPN.