BACKGROUND: Enteral tube and parenteral hyperalimentation are widely used nutritional support systems. Few studies examine the relation between nutritional support and patient outcomes in seriously ill hospitalized adults. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between nutritional support and survival in seriously ill patients enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). DESIGN: A prospective study of preferences, decision-making, and outcomes. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals PARTICIPANTS: 6298 patients aged 18 or older meeting diagnostic and illness severity criteria. MEASUREMENT: Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, comorbid conditions, acute physiology score, nutritional support, and functional status before hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 2149 patients received nutritional support. In patients who received artificial nutrition on hospital days 1 or 3 (Cohort 1), enteral feeding was associated with improved survival in coma (hazard: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42-0.66), and reduced survival in COPD (hazard: 1.57; 95%CI, 1.18-2.08). In patients who were hospitalized on Day 7 and received artificial nutrition on days 1, 3, or 7 (Cohort 2), enteral tube feeding (hazard: 0.35; 95%CI, 0.27-0.46) or hyperalimentation (hazard: 0.58; 95%CI, 0.38-0.90) was associated with improved survival in coma. Tube feeding was associated with decreased survival in acute respiratory failure (ARF) or multiorgan system failure (MOSF) with sepsis (hazard: 1.21; 95%CI, 10.4-1.41), cirrhosis (hazard: 2.15; 95%CI, 1.35-3.42), and COPD (hazard: 1.37; 95%CI, 1.04-1.80). Hyperalimentation was associated with decreased survival in ARF or MOSF with sepsis (hazard: 1.34; 95%CI, 1.12-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional support was associated with improved survival in coma. Enteral feeding and hyperalimentation was associated with decreased survival in ARF or MOSF with sepsis. Tube feeding was associated with decreased survival in cirrhosis and COPD. Except for patients in coma, artificial nutrition was not associated with a survival advantage.
BACKGROUND: Enteral tube and parenteral hyperalimentation are widely used nutritional support systems. Few studies examine the relation between nutritional support and patient outcomes in seriously ill hospitalized adults. OBJECTIVE: To explore the association between nutritional support and survival in seriously ill patients enrolled in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT). DESIGN: A prospective study of preferences, decision-making, and outcomes. SETTING: Five teaching hospitals PARTICIPANTS: 6298 patients aged 18 or older meeting diagnostic and illness severity criteria. MEASUREMENT: Demographic characteristics, diagnoses, comorbid conditions, acute physiology score, nutritional support, and functional status before hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 2149 patients received nutritional support. In patients who received artificial nutrition on hospital days 1 or 3 (Cohort 1), enteral feeding was associated with improved survival in coma (hazard: 0.53; 95%CI, 0.42-0.66), and reduced survival in COPD (hazard: 1.57; 95%CI, 1.18-2.08). In patients who were hospitalized on Day 7 and received artificial nutrition on days 1, 3, or 7 (Cohort 2), enteral tube feeding (hazard: 0.35; 95%CI, 0.27-0.46) or hyperalimentation (hazard: 0.58; 95%CI, 0.38-0.90) was associated with improved survival in coma. Tube feeding was associated with decreased survival in acute respiratory failure (ARF) or multiorgan system failure (MOSF) with sepsis (hazard: 1.21; 95%CI, 10.4-1.41), cirrhosis (hazard: 2.15; 95%CI, 1.35-3.42), and COPD (hazard: 1.37; 95%CI, 1.04-1.80). Hyperalimentation was associated with decreased survival in ARF or MOSF with sepsis (hazard: 1.34; 95%CI, 1.12-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional support was associated with improved survival in coma. Enteral feeding and hyperalimentation was associated with decreased survival in ARF or MOSF with sepsis. Tube feeding was associated with decreased survival in cirrhosis and COPD. Except for patients in coma, artificial nutrition was not associated with a survival advantage.
Entities:
Keywords:
Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship; Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT)
Authors: Eric J Charles; Robin T Petroze; Rosemarie Metzger; Tjasa Hranjec; Laura H Rosenberger; Lin M Riccio; Matthew D McLeod; Christopher A Guidry; George J Stukenborg; Brian R Swenson; Kate F Willcutts; Kelly B O'Donnell; Robert G Sawyer Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Teodoro Grau; Alfonso Bonet; Mercedes Rubio; Dolores Mateo; Mercé Farré; José Antonio Acosta; Antonio Blesa; Juan Carlos Montejo; Abelardo García de Lorenzo; Alfonso Mesejo Journal: Crit Care Date: 2007 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Rachel G Khadaroo; Raj S Padwal; Adrian S Wagg; Fiona Clement; Lindsey M Warkentin; Jayna Holroyd-Leduc Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Marco Antonio Silva; Saionara da Graca Freitas dos Santos; Cristiane Damiani Tomasi; Gabrielle da Luz; Marcos Marques da Silva Paula; Felipe Dal Pizzol; Cristiane Ritter Journal: Clinics (Sao Paulo) Date: 2013 Impact factor: 2.365