OBJECTIVE: Artificial nutrition (AN) is now considered medical therapy and has progressively become one of the mainstays of the different therapeutic options available for home or hospitalized patients, including surgical, medical, and critically ill patients. The clinical relevance of any therapy is based on its efficacy and effectiveness and thus on the improvement of its cost efficiency, i.e., the ability to provide benefits to the patients with minimal wasting of human and financial resources. The aim of the present study was to identify those indices, clinical, functional, or nutritional, that may reliably predict, before the start of AN, those patients who are likely not to benefit from nutritional support. METHODS: Three hundred twelve clinical charts of patients receiving AN between January 1999 and September 2006 were retrospectively examined. Data registered before starting AN were collected and analyzed: general data (age, sex), clinical conditions (comorbidity, quality of life, frailty), anthropometric and biochemical indices, type of AN treatment (total enteral nutrition, total parenteral nutrition, mixed AN), and outcome of treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of negative outcomes (death or interruption of AN due to worsening clinical conditions within 10 d after starting AN) was meaningfully higher in subjects >80 y of age and with reduced social functions, higher comorbidity and/or frailty, reduced level of albumin, prealbumin, lymphocyte count, and cholinesterase and a higher level of C-reactive protein. The multivariate analysis showed that prealbumin and comorbidity were the best predictors of AN outcome. The logistic regression model with these variables showed a predictive value equal to 84.2%. CONCLUSION: Proper prognostic instruments are necessary to perform optimal evaluations. The present study showed that a patient's general status (i.e., comorbidity, social quality of life, frailty) and nutritional and inflammatory statuses (i.e., lymphocyte count, albumin, prealbumin, C-reactive protein) have good predictive value on the effectiveness of AN.
OBJECTIVE: Artificial nutrition (AN) is now considered medical therapy and has progressively become one of the mainstays of the different therapeutic options available for home or hospitalized patients, including surgical, medical, and critically illpatients. The clinical relevance of any therapy is based on its efficacy and effectiveness and thus on the improvement of its cost efficiency, i.e., the ability to provide benefits to the patients with minimal wasting of human and financial resources. The aim of the present study was to identify those indices, clinical, functional, or nutritional, that may reliably predict, before the start of AN, those patients who are likely not to benefit from nutritional support. METHODS: Three hundred twelve clinical charts of patients receiving AN between January 1999 and September 2006 were retrospectively examined. Data registered before starting AN were collected and analyzed: general data (age, sex), clinical conditions (comorbidity, quality of life, frailty), anthropometric and biochemical indices, type of AN treatment (total enteral nutrition, total parenteral nutrition, mixed AN), and outcome of treatment. RESULTS: The percentage of negative outcomes (death or interruption of AN due to worsening clinical conditions within 10 d after starting AN) was meaningfully higher in subjects >80 y of age and with reduced social functions, higher comorbidity and/or frailty, reduced level of albumin, prealbumin, lymphocyte count, and cholinesterase and a higher level of C-reactive protein. The multivariate analysis showed that prealbumin and comorbidity were the best predictors of AN outcome. The logistic regression model with these variables showed a predictive value equal to 84.2%. CONCLUSION: Proper prognostic instruments are necessary to perform optimal evaluations. The present study showed that a patient's general status (i.e., comorbidity, social quality of life, frailty) and nutritional and inflammatory statuses (i.e., lymphocyte count, albumin, prealbumin, C-reactive protein) have good predictive value on the effectiveness of AN.
Authors: A Nouvenne; A Ticinesi; F Lauretani; M Maggio; G Lippi; B Prati; L Borghi; T Meschi Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Gabriel Olveira; María José Tapia; Julia Ocón; Carmen Cabrejas-Gómez; María D Ballesteros-Pomar; Alfonso Vidal-Casariego; Carmen Arraiza-Irigoyen; Josefina Olivares; Maria Del Carmen Conde-García; Alvaro García-Manzanares; Francisco Botella-Romero; Rosa P Quílez-Toboso; Lucio Cabrerizo; Pilar Matia; Luisa Chicharro; Rosa Burgos; Pedro Pujante; Mercedes Ferrer; Ana Zugasti; Javier Prieto; Marta Diéguez; María José Carrera; Anna Vila-Bundo; Juan Ramón Urgelés; Carmen Aragón-Valera; Adela Rovira; Irene Bretón; Pilar García-Peris; Araceli Muñoz-Garach; Efren Márquez; Dolores Del Olmo; José Luis Pereira; María C Tous Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Jaesik Park; Soo Jin Lim; Ho Joong Choi; Sang Hyun Hong; Chul Soo Park; Jong Ho Choi; Min Suk Chae Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Eva Valentina Klocker; Dominik Andreas Barth; Jakob Michael Riedl; Felix Prinz; Joanna Szkandera; Konstantin Schlick; Peter Kornprat; Karoline Lackner; Jörg Lindenmann; Herbert Stöger; Michael Stotz; Armin Gerger; Martin Pichler Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-04 Impact factor: 6.575