Journals / Medicine Science / 2019 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of alternative nutrition practices in intensive care patients in terms of mortality and malnutrition

Pages
218–220
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

We suggest that nutritional support should be provided to serious patients in intensive care unit as soon as possible in order to reduce morbidity, mortality and malnutrition, and we think that PEG procedure is safer and more effective nutritional practice than other procedures.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:It is important to ensure proper nutrition to prevent malnutrition, mortality and the development of metabolic disorders in followed up patients in the intensive care unit.
📊
Key Findings & Data:We retrospectively analyzed 117 patients’ data with no oral intake in the intensive care unit.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:We suggest that nutritional support should be provided to serious patients in intensive care unit as soon as possible in order to reduce morbidity, mortality and malnutrition, and we think that PEG procedure is safer and more effective nutritional practice than other procedures.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

It is important to ensure proper nutrition to prevent malnutrition, mortality and the development of metabolic disorders in followed up patients in the intensive care unit. In case the patients gastrointestinal tract starts functioning, enteral feeding should be started in the early period. Patients should be given parenteral support when the gastrointestinal tract does not work. In this study, we compared the mortality, malnutrition and metabolic parameters of patients who received nutritional support via nasogastric catheter, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and total parenteral nutrition. We retrospectively analyzed 117 patients’ data with no oral intake in the intensive care unit. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to nutritional practices. Group 1included 62 patients with PEG, group 2 included 28 patients with NG and group 3 had 27 patients with TPN support. In the comparison of mortality between groups, there was a significant decrease in PEG fed patients (p <0.001). There was also a significant decrease in mortality of NG group when compared to TPN group (p<0.01, Table2). In malnutrition comparison, serum albumin levels were significantly higher in PEG fed patients than in other groups (Table 3, p <0.03). There were significant improvements in metabolic parameters in the PEG group patients. We suggest that nutritional support should be provided to serious patients in intensive care unit as soon as possible in order to reduce morbidity, mortality and malnutrition, and we think that PEG procedure is safer and more effective nutritional practice than other procedures.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATAYAN, Y., ÖZKAN, A. E., AKSAKAL, G., BENLİ, A. R., SEVENCAN, N. Ö., ERDOĞAN, M. A. (2019). Comparison of alternative nutrition practices in intensive care patients in terms of mortality and malnutrition. Medicine Science, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 218–220. https://ajindex.com/articles/277129

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Beaver ME, Myers JN, Griffenberg L. et al. Percutaneous fluoroscopic gastrostomy tube placement in patients with head and neck cancer. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:1141-4. Gauderer M. Twentyyears of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: origin and evolution of a concept and its expanded applications. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;50:879-83.
  2. Schrag SP, Sharma R, Jaik NP, et al. Complications related to percutaneous endoskopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. A comprehensive clinical review. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2007;16:407-18. Martínez Olmos MA, Martínez Vázquez MJ, Martínez-PugaLópez E, et al. Nutritional status study of inpatients in hospitals of Galicia. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 59:938-46.
  3. Kudsk KA, Croce MA, Fabian TC, et al. Enteral versus parenteral feeding: Effects on septic morbidity after blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. Ann Surg. 1992;215:503-11.
  4. McClave SA, Lukan JK, Slefater JA. Poorvalidity of residual volumes as a marker for risk of aspiration in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:324-30.
  5. Norton B, HomerWard M, Donelly MT, et al. A randomized comparison of percutaneous gastrostomy and nasogastric feding after acute dysphagic stroke. BMJ. 1996;312:13-6.
  6. Gauderer MW, Ponsky JL, Izant RJ Jr. Gastrostomy without laparotomy: a percutaneous endoscopic technique. J Pediatr Surg. 1980;15:872-5.
  7. Ponsky JL, Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a non-operative technique for feding gastrostomy, Gastrointest Endosc.1981;27:9-11.
  8. Hiki N, Maetani I, Suzuki Y, et al. Reduced risk of periostomal infection of direct percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in cancer patients: comparison with the pull percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy procedure. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;4:737-44.
  9. Nicholson FB, Korman MG, Richardson MA. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: A review of indications, complications and outcome. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;15:21-5.
  10. Chaer RA, RekkasD, Trevino J, et al. Intrahepatic placement of a PEG tube. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:763-5. Gauderer MW. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy: a 10-year experience with 220 children. J Pediatr Surg. 1991;26:288-94.
  11. Mc Carter TL, Condon SC, Aguilar RC, et al. Randomized prospective trial of early versus delayed feding after percutaneous gastrostomy placement. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:1107-8.
  12. Stockeld D, Faberberg J, Granstrom L. et al.Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy for nutrition in patients with oesophageal cancer. Eur J Surg. 2001;167:839-44.
  13. Şit M, Kahramansoy N, Te