1 / 25

Evaluation of Parenteral Nutrition Utilization in Oncology Patients

This study evaluates the utilization of parenteral nutrition (PN) in oncology patients at Hospital Kuala Lumpur to determine the appropriateness of PN support in relation to nutritional status and outcomes. The research analyzes demographic characteristics, PN delivery methods, nutritional support duration, and regimen types. Results indicate a high prevalence of malnutrition among cancer patients, emphasizing the importance of early identification and targeted PN intervention for improved outcomes.

amywjohnson
Download Presentation

Evaluation of Parenteral Nutrition Utilization in Oncology Patients

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CPA-MPS Conference Malaysia 2007 Evaluation of Parenteral Nutrition Utilization in Oncology Patients Sivakami Janahiraman, SM Yew, Che Ton Saari Pharmacy Division, Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL)

  2. INTRODUCTION • Parenteral Nutrition (PN) -therapeutic intravenous administration of nutrients • Indicated in cases where oral or enteral feeding is:- • Insufficient • Impossible • Undesirable (Messing B, 2000; Giovanni F et al, 1999)

  3. INTRODUCTION • Malnutrition is a common manifestation of cancer which is often present with loss of appetite and ineffective utilization of nutrients. • Impact of malnutrition: • Higher risk of infection • Poorer tolerance and response to treatment • Lower quality of life • Shorter survival (Grant et al, 1994; Ottery, 1996; Nitenberg & Raynard, 2000)

  4. INTRODUCTION The use of nutritional therapy in cancer patients is tailored to complement the primary treatment • PN support in surgery • PN support during chemotherapy • PN in radiation therapy

  5. GENERAL OBJECTIVE To elucidate the appropriateness of PN support in cancer patients using the criteria of nutritional status and ultimate outcome

  6. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES • To identify the demographic characteristics of cancer patients • To obtain the diagnosis or related medical problem of patients • To identify the method of PN delivery • To analyze the quantity of PN preparations and duration of nutritional support provided • To evaluate type of regimen administered to patients

  7. METHODOLOGY • Setting: Hospital Kuala Lumpur • Design: Retrospective study • Subjects: Cancer patients • Study location: Record Units - Wisma Kayu (K2) Surgical Out-Patient Dept Oncology and Radiotherapy Dept Urology and Nephrology Dept • Study period: January 2005 – December 2005

  8. SELECTION CRITERIA

  9. STUDY FLOW CHART SCREENING OF PATIENTS’ RECORD IN TPN PHARMACY (n=159) PATIENTS FIT INCLUSION / EXCLUSION CRITERIA SELECTED AS SUBJECTS (n=69) DATA COLLECTION RECORD UNIT

  10. STUDY FLOW CHART K 2, SOPD, RT & UN DATA COMPLETION (filling up incomplete details) INSUFFICIENTDATA COMPLETE DATA (n=56) DATA ANALYSIS REJECTED (n=13) CONCLUSION

  11. METHODOLOGY Nutritional status was determined by: • Serum albumin level < 35 g/L (Jeliffe 1966; Bishop et al 1981, Ireton J & Hasse J 1992) • Total protein < 60g/L (Jeliffe 1966, Bishop et al 1981, Kotler DP 2000 ) • Total lymphocyte count < 1.5 x 10-9/L (Jeliffe 1966; Bishop et al 1981) Ultimate outcome were one of the following: • Improved • Declined • Death

  12. RESULTS & DISCUSSION

  13. DEMOGRAPHIC Distribution of patients by age and gender • Mean age : female (23.2%) - 59.5 + 16.7years • male (76.8%) - 55.5 + 15.4 years • There was no significant association between age and gender (p = 0.424). • Majority of subjects were Malays(28) followed by Chinese(17) and Indians(11).

  14. Route of PN administration • Peripheral – 1 to 15 days (mean 5 + 7days) • Central – 1 to 25 days (mean 10 + 9days)

  15. Total PN preparations provided to patients

  16. 23% of the patients received compounded PN upon initiation (n=13).

  17. 93% malnourished 70% malnourished 73% malnourished

  18. 55% malnourished 48% malnourished 37% malnourished Nutritional status correlated positively with albumin, total protein and total lymphocyte count (r=0.312, p<0.01).

  19. No significant difference in nutritional status among cancer patients with regard to duration of PN provided {F(1,54) = 0.238, p>0.05}.

  20. No significant difference in outcome and duration of PN supplementation {F(1,54) = 0.238, p>0.05}.

  21. DISCUSSION • Prevalence of malnutrition in this study as identified by using serum albumin, total protein and TLC as indicator was comparable to that found in other studies • Bauer et al 2002 – prevalence of malnutrition in oncology inpatients ~ 76% • Results of nutritional status and outcomes differ from other similar studies • Neither adjunctive therapy nor supportive PN improved quality of life and ultimate outcome in terminally ill cancer patients (Giovanni et al 1999)

  22. CONCLUSION • Most oncology patients are malnourished before nutritional intervention • Early identification of patients at risk of malnutrition is necessary • Carefully targeted parenteral nutrition may benefit patients and improve outcome

  23. Thank You….

More Related