Proactive enteral nutrition for patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation- implementation and clinical outcomes

Background/ Objectives Nutrition support is frequently required post allogeneic haematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (HPCT) however the tolerance of enteral nutrition (EN) can vary. This mixed methods study aimed to explore staff perceptions, barriers and enablers to the use of EN post HPC...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of clinical nutrition 2024-03, Vol.78 (3), p.251-256
Main Authors: Andersen, Sarah, Fichera, Rebecca, Banks, Merrilyn, Brown, Teresa, Kennedy, Glen, Weber, Nicholas, Williams, David, Bauer, Judy
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
692/699/67/1059
692/700/2814
Allografts
Clinical Nutrition
Clinical outcomes
Enteral nutrition
Epidemiology
Immunological tolerance
Internal Medicine
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Metabolic Diseases
Nutrition
Nutritional status
Patients
Progenitor cells
Public Health
Stem cell transplantation
Stem cells
Surveys
Transplantation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background/ Objectives Nutrition support is frequently required post allogeneic haematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (HPCT) however the tolerance of enteral nutrition (EN) can vary. This mixed methods study aimed to explore staff perceptions, barriers and enablers to the use of EN post HPCT and report the implementation and outcomes of a nutrition protocol. Subject/ Methods A survey on barriers and enablers to the use of EN was developed and distributed to medical and nursing staff. Data on nutrition and clinical outcomes was collected for 12 months post implementation of a new nutrition protocol. Results Thirty staff completed the survey, key barriers identified included uncertain EN tolerance, lack of confidence in nasogastric tube placement and insufficient training and resources. Eighty-four patients commenced EN, 23 changed to PN (27%) and 61 received EN only (73%). In total 36 patients received PN and eight patients oral nutrition support only. There was a difference in type of conditioning ( p  = 0.025) and nutritional status ( p  = 0.016) between patients who received PN vs EN only, with a higher proportion of malnourished patients receiving PN (23% vs 5%). Patients who received PN had a longer length of hospital stay (median 22 vs 19 days, p  = 0.012) and lower rate of survival to day 100 (81% vs 95%, p  = 0.036) than patients who received EN. Conclusion The use of EN may lead to improved clinical outcomes compared to PN therefore should be implemented as first line nutrition support.
ISSN:0954-3007
1476-5640
DOI:10.1038/s41430-023-01367-8