Efficacy of enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients.

Federico Bozzetti, Valentina Bozzetti
{"title":"Efficacy of enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients.","authors":"Federico Bozzetti, Valentina Bozzetti","doi":"10.1159/000083302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Before attempting to analyze the potential efficacy of the two different routes of administering nutrients to cancer patients, enteral nutrition (EN) versus total parenteral nutrition (TPN), it should be appreciated that patients who are usually fed via a vein are not the same as those who receive EN. If fact, nowadays, the option for TPN only emerges if a patient is not suitable for EN because his/her gut is not working. Consequently the different effects of EN and TPN cannot be attributed only to the administration route of nutrients, but also to the different basic conditions of these 2 groups of patients. There are, however, some exceptions: at the beginning of the era of artificial nutrition, TPN was more developed than EN probably because the impetus of this new approach relied on an urgent need to solve the problems of patients with intestinal failure. In fact, initially TPN was developed in surgical departments to meet the nutritional requirements of patients with short-bowel syndrome or abdominal catastrophes. This translated into the use of TPN also in patients with a working gut, and finally rendered a comparison between TPN and EN not only possible, but even scientifically rational and ethically acceptable. At this point we were roughly in the 1980s. Another field where TPN and EN are frequently compared is the perioperative setting. Nutritional support in the perioperative period is not nutrition in the traditional meaning of the word: it is the attempt to control the metabolic reaction to surgical trauma and to potentiate the defenses of the patient through the administration of nutrients. The indication for nutritional support in this patient population was questioned for a long time and the simple provision of a saline solution for a few days was usually accepted in many institutions. Consequently in the literature there are studies comparing not only different nutritional regimens and Lochs H, Thomas DR (eds): Home Care Enteral Feeding. Nestlé Nutrition Workshop Series Clinical & Performance Program, vol 10, pp 127–142, Nestec Ltd., Vevey/S. Karger AG, Basel, © 2005.","PeriodicalId":18989,"journal":{"name":"Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme","volume":"10 ","pages":"127-142"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000083302","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nestle Nutrition workshop series. Clinical & performance programme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000083302","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

Before attempting to analyze the potential efficacy of the two different routes of administering nutrients to cancer patients, enteral nutrition (EN) versus total parenteral nutrition (TPN), it should be appreciated that patients who are usually fed via a vein are not the same as those who receive EN. If fact, nowadays, the option for TPN only emerges if a patient is not suitable for EN because his/her gut is not working. Consequently the different effects of EN and TPN cannot be attributed only to the administration route of nutrients, but also to the different basic conditions of these 2 groups of patients. There are, however, some exceptions: at the beginning of the era of artificial nutrition, TPN was more developed than EN probably because the impetus of this new approach relied on an urgent need to solve the problems of patients with intestinal failure. In fact, initially TPN was developed in surgical departments to meet the nutritional requirements of patients with short-bowel syndrome or abdominal catastrophes. This translated into the use of TPN also in patients with a working gut, and finally rendered a comparison between TPN and EN not only possible, but even scientifically rational and ethically acceptable. At this point we were roughly in the 1980s. Another field where TPN and EN are frequently compared is the perioperative setting. Nutritional support in the perioperative period is not nutrition in the traditional meaning of the word: it is the attempt to control the metabolic reaction to surgical trauma and to potentiate the defenses of the patient through the administration of nutrients. The indication for nutritional support in this patient population was questioned for a long time and the simple provision of a saline solution for a few days was usually accepted in many institutions. Consequently in the literature there are studies comparing not only different nutritional regimens and Lochs H, Thomas DR (eds): Home Care Enteral Feeding. Nestlé Nutrition Workshop Series Clinical & Performance Program, vol 10, pp 127–142, Nestec Ltd., Vevey/S. Karger AG, Basel, © 2005.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
肿瘤患者肠内和肠外营养的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The magnitude of the problem of malnutrition in Europe. Malnutrition in North America: where have we been? Where are we going? The economics of malnutrition. The need for consistent criteria for identifying malnutrition. Enteral nutrition reimbursement - the rationale for the policy: the US perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1