JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2015
Single-Center, Adult Chronic Intestinal Failure Cohort Analyzed According to the ESPEN-Endorsed Recommendations, Definitions, and Classifications.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Brandt Christopher Filtenborg, Tribler Siri, Hvistendahl Mark, Staun Michael, Brøbech Per, Jeppesen Palle Bekker
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIMS: The objective of this study was to describe a clinically well-defined, single-center, intestinal failure (IF) cohort based on a template of definitions and classifications endorsed by the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN).
METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective, adult IF cohort, receiving parenteral support (PS), was extracted from the Copenhagen IF database at the tertiary IF center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark.
RESULTS: Rigshospitalet provided PS to 188 adult patients with IF on December 31, 2011. Six patients received only fluids and electrolytes, while 97% required parenteral energy (17 ± 12 kcal/kg/d). Although 92% of the cohort had undergone intestinal resection, only 53% were classified as patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) according to the pathophysiological classification. In the remaining cohort, patients were distributed as 5% with intestinal fistula, 12% with intestinal dysmotility, 5% with mechanical obstruction, and 14% with mucosal diseases. Twelve percent had a combination of pathophysiological causes. The patients with SBS (n = 100) were subdivided according to bowel anatomy into group 1 (jejuno/ileostomy, n = 82), group 2 (jejuno-colonic-anastomosis, n = 16), and group 3 (jejuno-ileo-colonic-anastomosis, n = 2). When evaluating the cohort requirements for PS using the ESPEN chronic IF classification based on the need for fluid volume and energy, 53% of the patients with IF were distributed in the maximum categories.
CONCLUSION: The orphan condition of IF with its large patient heterogeneity mandates establishment of uniform definitions and a harmonization of classifications. As illustrated, the ESPEN-endorsed definitions and classifications are well designed and may serve as a common uniform template to facilitate both intra- and intercenter comparisons between reference centers and thus outcome results.
METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective, adult IF cohort, receiving parenteral support (PS), was extracted from the Copenhagen IF database at the tertiary IF center, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark.
RESULTS: Rigshospitalet provided PS to 188 adult patients with IF on December 31, 2011. Six patients received only fluids and electrolytes, while 97% required parenteral energy (17 ± 12 kcal/kg/d). Although 92% of the cohort had undergone intestinal resection, only 53% were classified as patients with short bowel syndrome (SBS) according to the pathophysiological classification. In the remaining cohort, patients were distributed as 5% with intestinal fistula, 12% with intestinal dysmotility, 5% with mechanical obstruction, and 14% with mucosal diseases. Twelve percent had a combination of pathophysiological causes. The patients with SBS (n = 100) were subdivided according to bowel anatomy into group 1 (jejuno/ileostomy, n = 82), group 2 (jejuno-colonic-anastomosis, n = 16), and group 3 (jejuno-ileo-colonic-anastomosis, n = 2). When evaluating the cohort requirements for PS using the ESPEN chronic IF classification based on the need for fluid volume and energy, 53% of the patients with IF were distributed in the maximum categories.
CONCLUSION: The orphan condition of IF with its large patient heterogeneity mandates establishment of uniform definitions and a harmonization of classifications. As illustrated, the ESPEN-endorsed definitions and classifications are well designed and may serve as a common uniform template to facilitate both intra- and intercenter comparisons between reference centers and thus outcome results.