Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2024
Peripheral parenteral nutrition: A retrospective observational study to evaluate utility and complications.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Bidgood Emma, Huang Joanna, Murphy Elise, Prentice Ralley, Hede Beth, Russell David
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) provides an alternative nutrition support strategy to centrally administered PN for specific patients requiring short-term PN. Previous studies have demonstrated limited use of PPN and variable complication rates. This study aimed to evaluate PPN complications and usage at this center.
METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective observational study of all adult patients who received at least 1 day of PPN from June 2018 to December 2023. Demographic and clinical data were collected, including complications, indications for PN and reason for PPN, duration of therapy, reason for cessation of PPN, nutrition status, energy and protein provision, and central line insertion rates.
RESULTS: 381 patients were included, the median age was 62 (interquartile range = 28-74) years, and 235 were men (61.7%). The most common indication for PN was ileus (n = 153, 40%) followed by gastrointestinal obstruction (n = 93, 24%). The median time receiving PPN was 3 (2-4) days. Patients received a median of 65% (55%-75%) of energy and 58% (50%-69%) of protein requirements with PPN. Malnutrition was diagnosed in 47.5% (n = 181) of this cohort. Total complication rates were 8.7% (n = 33), with cannula infiltration being the most common complication (6.6%, n = 25). 213 (56%) patients proceeded to central line insertion.
CONCLUSION: PPN proved to be a safe and effective therapy for short-term PN when managed by a nutrition support team. PPN has the potential to attenuate short-term nutrition deficits and prevent central venous access device insertion in selected patients, making it a valuable nutrition support therapy.
METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective observational study of all adult patients who received at least 1 day of PPN from June 2018 to December 2023. Demographic and clinical data were collected, including complications, indications for PN and reason for PPN, duration of therapy, reason for cessation of PPN, nutrition status, energy and protein provision, and central line insertion rates.
RESULTS: 381 patients were included, the median age was 62 (interquartile range = 28-74) years, and 235 were men (61.7%). The most common indication for PN was ileus (n = 153, 40%) followed by gastrointestinal obstruction (n = 93, 24%). The median time receiving PPN was 3 (2-4) days. Patients received a median of 65% (55%-75%) of energy and 58% (50%-69%) of protein requirements with PPN. Malnutrition was diagnosed in 47.5% (n = 181) of this cohort. Total complication rates were 8.7% (n = 33), with cannula infiltration being the most common complication (6.6%, n = 25). 213 (56%) patients proceeded to central line insertion.
CONCLUSION: PPN proved to be a safe and effective therapy for short-term PN when managed by a nutrition support team. PPN has the potential to attenuate short-term nutrition deficits and prevent central venous access device insertion in selected patients, making it a valuable nutrition support therapy.