Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2004
Indications for administration of parenteral nutrition in adults.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Braunschweig Carol, Liang HuiFang, Sheean Patricia
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Who benefits from parenteral nutrition (PN) has been the subject of much debate and 4 recent meta-analyses.
METHODS: We reviewed the 4 meta-analyses that examined the prospective, randomized, clinical trials (PRCT) that compared PN with no nutrition support (standard care) for design, study population, outcomes evaluated, and results.
RESULTS: Overall, a total of 113 PRCT were included in the 4 meta-analyses; however, only 4 studies were included in all of them. Despite the differences in populations studied and outcomes evaluated, some similarities emerged: (1) PN does not affect mortality; (2) PN does not reduce complications in normally nourished patients; (3) in malnourished patients, PN demonstrated a trend for reduced infections and complication rates; and (4) PN reduced postoperative complications in patients having surgery for cancer of the esophagus or stomach.
CONCLUSION: PN does not appear to be beneficial for most hospitalized patients. Among those with malnutrition or with upper gastrointestinal cancer, benefits may exist; however, these were influenced by quality of the study and year of publication.
METHODS: We reviewed the 4 meta-analyses that examined the prospective, randomized, clinical trials (PRCT) that compared PN with no nutrition support (standard care) for design, study population, outcomes evaluated, and results.
RESULTS: Overall, a total of 113 PRCT were included in the 4 meta-analyses; however, only 4 studies were included in all of them. Despite the differences in populations studied and outcomes evaluated, some similarities emerged: (1) PN does not affect mortality; (2) PN does not reduce complications in normally nourished patients; (3) in malnourished patients, PN demonstrated a trend for reduced infections and complication rates; and (4) PN reduced postoperative complications in patients having surgery for cancer of the esophagus or stomach.
CONCLUSION: PN does not appear to be beneficial for most hospitalized patients. Among those with malnutrition or with upper gastrointestinal cancer, benefits may exist; however, these were influenced by quality of the study and year of publication.