Abstract
Background
In patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN), the association between nutrition achievement in accordance with nutrition guidelines and outcomes remains unclear. Our purpose was to assess the association between nutrition achievement and clinical outcomes, including in‐hospital mortality, activity of daily living (ADL), and readmission.
Methods
In this retrospective cohort study, data were extracted from an inpatient medical‐claims database at 380 acute care hospitals. This study included patients who underwent central venous catheter insertion between January 2009 and December 2018. Patients were classified into 3 groups: (1) target‐not‐achieved; (2) target‐partially‐achieved; and (3) target‐achieved. The target doses of energy, amino acids, and lipid were defined as ≥20 kcal/kg/day, ≥1.0 g/kg/day, and ≥2.5 g/day, respectively. To examine the effect of nutrition achievement on outcomes, a multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.
Results
A total of 54,687 patients were included; of these, 21,383 patients were in the target‐not‐achieved group, 29,610 patients were in the target‐partially‐achieved group, and 3694 patients were in the target‐achieved group. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% CI) for in‐hospital mortality was 0.69 (0.66–0.72) in the target‐partially‐achieved group and 0.47 (0.43–0.52) in the target‐achieved group with reference to the target‐not‐achieved group. The adjusted ORs for deteriorated ADL was 0.93 (0.85–1.01) in the target‐partially‐achieved group and 0.77 (0.65–0.92) in the target‐achieved group with reference to the target‐not‐achieved group. Readmission was not associated with nutrition achievement.
Conclusion
In‐hospital mortality was lower and deteriorated ADL was suppressed in patients whose PN management was in accordance with the nutrition guidelines.
Keywords: clinical outcomes, in‐hospital mortality, parenteral nutrition, prescribed nutrients, real‐world data, target achievement
Clinical Relevancy Statement
Malnutrition is common among patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN). International guidelines recommend PN for patients who are unable to oral or enteral nutrition for prolonged periods. Because little has been known on the impact of nutrition achievement on clinical outcomes in patients receiving PN, this study assessed the association between nutrition achievement in prescribed mean daily doses of energy, amino acids, and lipid between days 4 and 10 after central venous catheter insertion and clinical outcomes among inpatients receiving PN, using a large inpatient medical‐claims database. The risks for in‐hospital mortality and deteriorated activity for daily living were lower among patients who achieved the target level of all nutrients, compared with those who partially achieved or did not achieve it. PN management in accordance with nutrition guidelines may be a key factor in achieving better clinical outcomes for inpatients receiving PN.
Introduction
Malnutrition is prevalent in hospitalized patients, with a range of 20%–50%. 1 Malnutrition increases the risk of complications, 2 , 3 , 4 prolonged hospital stay, 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 readmission, 2 , 3 , 6 and mortality 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 in hospitalized patients. Given these poor prognoses, malnutrition is a major public health problem.
The international guidelines recommend parenteral nutrition (PN) for patients when there is intolerance to oral nutrition or enteral nutrition, when they are inadequate, or when enteral nutrition is contraindicated 8 , 9 , 10 ; PN should be considered in cases being unable to receive oral or enteral nutrition for prolonged periods. The guidelines in Japan, Europe, and the United States recommend approximately 20–30 kcal/kg/day of energy, 0.8–1.2 g/kg/day of protein, 8 , 11 , 12 and 15%–30% of nonprotein energy for lipid, 11 for adult patients receiving PN. However, malnutrition has been reported to be common in patients receiving PN. 13 Our previous study 14 and other studies 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 showed that the majority of patients receiving PN did not receive adequate nutrition intake.
A randomized controlled trial showed that an individualized nutrition support prescription to reach energy and protein goals improved clinical outcomes among medical inpatients at high risk of malnutrition. 19 Another observational study showed that critically ill patients who achieved both energy and protein targets had lower mortality than those who reached neither target. 20 However, the impact of nutrition achievement on clinical outcomes has not been assessed in patients receiving PN. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the association between nutrition achievement and clinical outcomes, including in‐hospital mortality, activity of daily living (ADL), and readmission in hospitalized patients receiving PN, using a Japanese medical‐claims database.
Methods
Data Source
Data for this retrospective cohort study were extracted from an inpatient‐claims database provided by Medical Data Vision Co, Ltd (MDV, Tokyo, Japan). The database includes deidentified patient‐level information, including age, sex, discharge status, and medical claims, including main diagnoses, preexisting comorbidities, and postadmission complications (recorded according to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision [ICD‐10] codes), date‐stamped procedures, and date‐stamped medications. Type of admission (elective and emergency) is also recorded. As of August 2019, the database contained both outpatient and inpatient data of approximately 27 million patients treated at 380 acute care hospitals, which covered approximately 22% of all Japanese acute care hospitals where diagnosis procedure combination/per diem payment system (a case‐mix inpatient classification system for acute care hospitals in Japan) is used.
Patients
This study included hospitalized patients who underwent central venous catheter (CVC) insertion between January 2009 and December 2018 and who were aged ≥18 years on the day of CVC insertion (day 1). The following patients were excluded from the study: patients whose data on body weight were missing or <10 kg; those who were discharged, had oral dietary intake, or had enteral nutrition on or before day 10; or those whose mean energy prescription was <5 kcal/kg/day or >60 kcal/kg/day, mean amino acid prescription was <0.1 g/kg/day or >3 g/kg/day, or mean lipid prescription was >3 g/kg/day between days 4 and 10. These exclusion criteria were determined to eliminate data of pediatric patients, data entry errors, clinically unlikely data, and data of patients who had a CVC insertion but were not receiving PN (eg, for anticancer drug administration purposes and for water and electrolyte administration at the end of life) from a clinical perspective.
Exposure
Prescription records of energy, amino acids, and lipid were identified, and mean daily doses of energy, amino acids, and lipid prescribed between days 4 and 10 were calculated based on the prescription records under the assumption that nutrient doses reach 100% of the requirement on day 4 after a gradual increment from day 1. The target daily doses of energy, amino acids, and lipid were defined as ≥20 kcal/kg, ≥1.0 g/kg, and ≥2.5 g, respectively. The target doses of energy and amino acids were defined according to the nutrition guidelines for geriatric patients, 8 , 9 and that of lipid was defined in reference to the Japanese nutrition guidelines, determined from the perspectives for the prevention of essential fatty acid deficiency. 8 It should be noted that the lipid emulsions approved in Japan are only soybean oil–based, approximately 60% of which consist of linoleic and α‐linolenic acids. Patients were classified into the following 3 groups according to their nutrition target achievement on the basis of their prescription records: (1) target‐not‐achieved group, including patients who did not meet any of the target doses of energy, amino acids, and lipid; (2) target‐partially‐achieved group, including those who met 1 or 2 of the target doses of energy, amino acids, and lipid; and (3) target‐achieved group, including those who met all the target dose of energy, amino acids, and lipid.
For the calculation of energy and lipid intake, propofol (for general anesthetic and sedative agents, containing lipid emulsion as solvent) and other solutions used for medicine preparation (ie, carbohydrate solutions and carbohydrate‐electrolyte solutions) were included in addition to PN products.
In this study, we did not focus on intentional hypocaloric feedings in obese patients, because obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 30 among Japanese) was not prevalent (1.9%, 1,053 of 54,687) and underfeeding was notable in our previous study. 14
Outcomes
The primary end point was in‐hospital mortality. The secondary end points were deteriorated ADL and 30‐day readmission after discharge. Deteriorated ADL was defined as a Barthel Index score 21 lower at discharge than at admission.
Other Variables
The following data were extracted for patient characteristics at admission: age, sex, height, body weight, treatment year, number of beds at hospitalized institutions (hospital beds), main disease, comorbidities, ADL (Barthel Index), 21 level of consciousness (Japan Coma Scale [JCS]), 22 and type of admission (elective or emergency). Data on type of medical treatments, including surgery, blood transfusion, intensive care unit admission, respirator use, and blood purification therapy, received between the day of admission and day 3 were also extracted.
Age categories were 18–59 years, 60–69 years, 70–79 years, 80–89 years, and ≥90 years. BMI was calculated based on height and body weight data, and categories were <16.0 kg/m2, ≥16.0 to <18.5 kg/m2, ≥18.5 to <25.0 kg/m2, ≥25.0 to <30.0 kg/m2, and ≥30.0 kg/m2 based on the World Health Organization classification. Number of bed categories were <200, ≥200 to <500, and ≥500. The main disease was identified by the following ICD‐10 codes: digestive system malignancy (C15‐C26), hematological malignancy (C81‐C96), other malignancies (C00‐C14, C30‐C80, C97), sepsis (A40‐A41), coagulopathy (D65‐D69), cerebrovascular diseases (I60‐I69), cardiovascular diseases (I00‐59, I70‐I99), respiratory diseases (J00‐J99), digestive system diseases (K00‐K93), kidney and urinary tract diseases (N00‐N99), and others. Preexisting comorbidities were summarized by the Charlson Comorbidity Index, using algorithms developed by Quan, 23 and categorized as 0, 1–2, and ≥3. The Barthel Index categories were 0, 5–60, 65–95, and 100. For the level of consciousness, the JCS indicates the following values: 0, alert; 1‐digit code, not fully alert but awake without any stimuli; 2‐digit code, arousable with stimulation; 3‐digit code, unarousable. 22
Ethical Statements
Ethical approval was obtained from the clinical ethics committee of Jichi Medical University (No. Clinical 19–044). This study was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network Center (UMIN 000038054). Because deidentified data were used in this study, obtaining consent was not required. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects.
Statistical Analysis
Patient characteristics were descriptively summarized. For the changes in daily dose of nutrients over time, median daily doses of energy, amino acids, and lipid prescribed between days 1 and 10 were calculated. The median duration of PN from CVC insertion to discharge was calculated in days. The clinical outcomes were descriptively summarized and compared among the 3 groups using the χ2 test.
To examine the effect of nutrition target achievement on clinical outcomes, multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusting for patient characteristics (factors included in Table 1) as confounding factors was performed, and odds ratios (ORs) and the corresponding 95% CIs were estimated. The survival time between day 1 and death in the hospital, according to the nutrition target achievement groups, was estimated using the Kaplan‐Meier survival curve, and comparison among the nutrition target achievement groups was made using the log‐rank test. The hazard ratio (HR) for in‐hospital mortality in the target‐partially‐achieved group and target‐achieved group against the target‐not‐achieved group was calculated, adjusting for patient characteristics (factors included in Table 1), using a Cox proportional hazard model. Data for discharge alive and continued hospitalization ≥90 days after day 1 were censored.
Table 1.
Patient Characteristics in Hospitalized Patients With Parenteral Nutrition at Admission and Medical Treatments Between the Day of Admission and Day 3* According to Nutrition Target Achievement
| Target‐not‐achieved group † (n = 21,383) | Target‐partially‐achieved group † (n = 29,610) | Target‐achieved group † (n = 3694) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) |
| Age (years) | ||||||
| 18–59 | 2148 | (10.0) | 4015 | (13.6) | 735 | (19.9) |
| 60–69 | 3201 | (15.0) | 5391 | (18.2) | 784 | (21.2) |
| 70–79 | 5718 | (26.7) | 8168 | (27.6) | 1003 | (27.2) |
| 80–89 | 7486 | (35.0) | 9166 | (31.0) | 938 | (25.4) |
| ≥90 | 2830 | (13.2) | 2870 | (9.7) | 234 | (6.3) |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 13,212 | (61.8) | 17,787 | (60.1) | 1988 | (53.8) |
| Female | 8171 | (38.2) | 11,823 | (39.9) | 1706 | (46.2) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | ||||||
| <16.0 | 1548 | (7.2) | 4027 | (13.6) | 832 | (22.5) |
| ≥16.0 to <18.5 | 3335 | (15.6) | 6288 | (21.2) | 1107 | (30.0) |
| ≥18.5 to <25.0 | 12,016 | (56.2) | 15,505 | (52.4) | 1596 | (43.2) |
| ≥25.0 to <30.0 | 3124 | (14.6) | 2604 | (8.8) | 76 | (2.1) |
| ≥30.0 | 662 | (3.1) | 391 | (1.3) | 0 | (0.0) |
| Unknown | 698 | (3.3) | 795 | (2.7) | 83 | (2.2) |
| Treatment year | ||||||
| 2009 | 5 | (0.0) | 8 | (0.0) | 0 | (0.0) |
| 2010 | 434 | (2.0) | 762 | (2.6) | 121 | (3.3) |
| 2011 | 893 | (4.2) | 1542 | (5.2) | 214 | (5.8) |
| 2012 | 1213 | (5.7) | 1876 | (6.3) | 223 | (6.0) |
| 2013 | 1849 | (8.6) | 2802 | (9.5) | 358 | (9.7) |
| 2014 | 2742 | (12.8) | 3864 | (13.0) | 494 | (13.4) |
| 2015 | 3138 | (14.7) | 4458 | (15.1) | 564 | (15.3) |
| 2016 | 3558 | (16.6) | 4794 | (16.2) | 617 | (16.7) |
| 2017 | 3952 | (18.5) | 4932 | (16.7) | 591 | (16.0) |
| 2018 | 3599 | (16.8) | 4572 | (15.4) | 512 | (13.9) |
| Number of hospital beds | ||||||
| <200 | 1830 | (8.6) | 2207 | (7.5) | 179 | (4.8) |
| ≥200 to <500 | 13,597 | (63.6) | 17,877 | (60.4) | 2014 | (54.5) |
| ≥500 | 5956 | (27.9) | 9526 | (32.2) | 1501 | (40.6) |
| Main disease | ||||||
| Digestive system malignancy | 5058 | (23.7) | 9235 | (31.2) | 1468 | (39.7) |
| Hematological malignancy | 489 | (2.3) | 472 | (1.6) | 31 | (0.8) |
| Other malignancies | 1406 | (6.6) | 1514 | (5.1) | 145 | (3.9) |
| Sepsis | 671 | (3.1) | 822 | (2.8) | 57 | (1.5) |
| Coagulopathy | 376 | (1.8) | 445 | (1.5) | 37 | (1.0) |
| Cerebrovascular diseases | 1920 | (9.0) | 1418 | (4.8) | 91 | (2.5) |
| Cardiovascular diseases | 1295 | (6.1) | 1407 | (4.8) | 60 | (1.6) |
| Respiratory diseases | 4111 | (19.2) | 4789 | (16.2) | 427 | (11.6) |
| Digestive system diseases | 3508 | (16.4) | 6253 | (21.1) | 1047 | (28.3) |
| Kidney and urinary tract diseases | 492 | (2.3) | 652 | (2.2) | 41 | (1.1) |
| Others | 2057 | (9.6) | 2603 | (8.8) | 290 | (7.9) |
| Charlson Comorbidity Index score | ||||||
| 0 | 7256 | (33.9) | 9896 | (33.4) | 1311 | (35.5) |
| 1–2 | 9208 | (43.1) | 13,674 | (46.2) | 1741 | (47.1) |
| ≥3 | 4919 | (23.0) | 6040 | (20.4) | 642 | (17.4) |
| Barthel Index score | ||||||
| 100 | 5398 | (25.2) | 10,806 | (36.5) | 1738 | (47.0) |
| 65–95 | 1338 | (6.3) | 2160 | (7.3) | 348 | (9.4) |
| 5–60 | 3561 | (16.7) | 4312 | (14.6) | 435 | (11.8) |
| 0 | 8289 | (38.8) | 8731 | (29.5) | 757 | (20.5) |
| Unknown | 2797 | (13.1) | 3601 | (12.2) | 416 | (11.3) |
| Japan Coma Scale score | ||||||
| 0 | 13,217 | (61.8) | 21,349 | (72.1) | 3025 | (81.9) |
| 1–3 | 3835 | (17.9) | 4103 | (13.9) | 374 | (10.1) |
| 10–30 | 1760 | (8.2) | 1831 | (6.2) | 124 | (3.4) |
| 100–300 | 1566 | (7.3) | 1361 | (4.6) | 93 | (2.5) |
| Unknown | 1005 | (4.7) | 966 | (3.3) | 78 | (2.1) |
| Type of admission | ||||||
| Elective | 9012 | (42.1) | 14,457 | (48.8) | 2114 | (57.2) |
| Emergency | 12,344 | (57.7) | 15,120 | (51.1) | 1580 | (42.8) |
| Unknown | 27 | (0.1) | 33 | (0.1) | 0 | (0.0) |
| Type of medical treatments | ||||||
| Surgery | 7815 | (36.5) | 12,189 | (41.2) | 1454 | (39.4) |
| Blood transfusion ‡ | 5589 | (26.1) | 8391 | (28.3) | 976 | (26.4) |
| Intensive care unit admission | 3845 | (18.0) | 5647 | (19.1) | 588 | (15.9) |
| Respirator use | 3264 | (15.3) | 4494 | (15.2) | 353 | (9.6) |
| Blood purification therapy | 607 | (2.8) | 1092 | (3.7) | 74 | (2.0) |
Percentages may not add up to 100%, because of rounding.
BMI, body mass index.
Day 1 was regarded as the day of central venous catheter insertion.
The target daily doses of energy, amino acids, and lipid were defined as ≥20 kcal/kg, ≥1.0 g/kg, and ≥2.5 g, respectively. The target‐not‐achieved group included patients who did not meet any of the target dose of the nutrients. The target‐partially‐achieved group included those who met 1 or 2 of the target dose of the nutrients. The target‐achieved group included those who met all the target dose of the nutrients.
Performed by day 3 from the hospitalization day. Blood transfusion was considered as performed in patients if any red blood cells, platelets, or fresh‐frozen plasma was transfused.
Additionally, given that sufficient energy and protein intakes improved clinical outcomes as reported earlier, 19 , 20 ORs and the corresponding 95% CIs for in‐hospital mortality were calculated among patients who reached the target dose of both energy and amino acid in reference to those who did not reach the target of either nutrient when patient characteristics and the achievement status of lipid dose were adjusted.
All statistical analyses were performed using SAS release 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC, USA). All statistical tests were 2‐sided with a significance level of P < 0.05.
Results
Patients
The patient‐selection flowchart is shown in Figure 1. A total of 381,420 hospitalized patients underwent CVC insertion during the study period. After excluding patients who met any of the exclusion criteria, 54,687 were included in this study. Of these, 21,383 patients were in the target‐not‐achieved group (39.1%), 29,610 patients were in the target‐partially‐achieved group (54.1%), and 3694 patients were in the target‐achieved group (6.8%).
Figure 1.
Patient‐selection flowchart.*Day 1 was regarded as the day of CVC insertion.†The target daily doses of energy, amino acid, and lipid were defined as ≥20 kcal/kg, ≥1.0 g/kg, and ≥2.5 g, respectively. The target‐not‐achieved group included patients who did not meet any of the target dose of the nutrients. The target‐partially‐achieved group included those who met 1 or 2 of the target doses of the nutrients. The target‐achieved group included those who met all the target dose of the nutrients. CVC, central venous catheter; MDV, Medical Data Vision; PN, parenteral nutrition.
Baseline Characteristics
Patient characteristics of each group are shown in Table 1. The proportion of patients aged ≥80 years was 48.2% in the target‐not‐achieved group, 40.6% in the target‐partially‐achieved group, and 31.7% in the target‐achieved group. The proportion of patients with BMI <18.5 kg/m2 was the highest in the target‐achieved group (52.5%) and the lowest in the target‐not‐achieved group (22.8%). The 3 most common main diseases in the target‐not‐achieved group, target‐partially‐achieved group, and target‐achieved group were digestive system malignancy (23.7%, 31.2%, and 39.7%, respectively), digestive system disease (16.4%, 21.1%, and 28.3%, respectively), and respiratory diseases (19.2%, 16.2%, and 11.6%, respectively). More patients required full assistance in their daily activity (Barthel Index score of 0) and had moderate to severe disturbance of consciousness (JCS ≥ 1) in the target‐not‐achieved group (38.8% and 33.5%, respectively) than in the target‐partially‐achieved (29.5% and 24.6%, respectively) and target‐achieved groups (20.5% and 16.0%, respectively).
Changes in the Daily Dose of Nutrients and PN Duration
In the target‐achieved group, the median daily dose of all the nutrients reached the target level on day 2 or day 3. Conversely, in both the target‐not‐achieved group and target‐partially‐achieved group, the median daily dose of all nutrients did not reach the target level, except for energy in the target‐partially‐achieved group, which was reached on day 3 (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Change in median daily doses of (A) energy, (B) amino acids, and (C) lipid in hospitalized patients with PN according to nutrition target achievement between days 1*and 10.*Day 1 was regarded as the day of central venous catheter insertion. PN, parenteral nutrition.
The median (interquartile range) duration of PN from CVC insertion to discharge was 24 days (15–41), 26 days (17–44), and 31 days (21–49) in the target‐not‐achieved, target‐partially‐achieved, and target‐achieved groups, respectively.
Clinical Outcomes
In‐hospital mortality was 34.5% in the target‐not‐achieved group, 25.5% in the target‐partially‐achieved group, and 17.2% in the target‐achieved group, with a statistical significance among the 3 groups (P < 0.001) (Table 2). Deteriorated ADL and readmission were 10.4% and 4.8% in the target‐not‐achieved group, 10.3% and 5.1% in target‐partially‐achieved group, and 8.4% and 4.8% in the target‐achieved group, respectively, with a statistical significance between the 3 groups only for deteriorated ADL (P < 0.001 for deteriorated ADL and P = 0.36 for readmission).
Table 2.
Clinical Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Parenteral Nutrition According to Nutrition Target Achievement
| Target‐not‐achieved group(n = 21,383) | Target‐partially‐achieved group(n = 29,610) | Target‐achievedgroup(n = 3694) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical outcomes | n | (%) | n | (%) | n | (%) | P‐value* |
| In‐hospital mortality | 7369 | (34.5) | 7549 | (25.5) | 637 | (17.2) | <0.001 |
| Deteriorated ADL | 1464 | (10.4) | 2279 | (10.3) | 256 | (8.4) | <0.001 |
| Readmission | 675 | (4.8) | 1131 | (5.1) | 146 | (4.8) | 0.36 |
ADL, activity of daily living.
*χ2 Tests.
Nutrition Target Achievement Affecting Clinical Outcomes
The adjusted OR (95% CI) for in‐hospital mortality was 0.69 (0.66–0.72) in the target‐partially‐achieved group and 0.47 (0.43–0.52) in the target‐achieved group with reference to the target‐not‐achieved group (Table 3), and it was 0.76 (0.69–0.83) in the target‐achieved group with reference to the target‐partially‐achieved group. The adjusted OR for deteriorated ADL was 0.93 (0.85–1.01) in the target‐partially‐achieved group and 0.77 (0.65–0.92) in the target‐achieved group with reference to the target‐not‐achieved group. The adjusted ORs for all clinical outcomes were the lowest in the target‐achieved group with reference to the target‐not‐achieved group. The Kaplan‐Meier curves for in‐hospital mortality according to the nutrition target achievement are shown in Figure S1. The in‐hospital mortality rate was the highest in the target‐not‐achieved group and was the lowest in the target‐achieved group, with a significant difference between the 3 groups (log‐rank test, P < 0.001). The HR (95% CI) for in‐hospital mortality was 0.72 (0.69–0.74, P < 0.001) in the target‐partially‐achieved group and 0.51 (0.46–0.56, P < 0.001) in the target‐achieved group with reference to the target‐not‐achieved group.
Table 3.
Multivariate Logistic Regression* of Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients With Parenteral Nutrition According to Nutrition Target Achievement
| Target‐partially‐achieved † | Target‐achieved † | Target‐achieved ‡ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical outcomes | Adjusted OR | (95% CI) | Adjusted OR | (95% CI) | Adjusted OR | (95% CI) |
| In‐hospital mortality | 0.69 | (0.66–0.72) | 0.47 | (0.43–0.52) | 0.76 | (0.69–0.83) |
| Deteriorated ADL | 0.93 | (0.85–1.01) | 0.77 | (0.65–0.92) | 0.83 | (0.72–0.97) |
| Readmission | 0.98 | (0.89–1.09) | 0.87 | (0.71–1.07) | 0.87 | (0.73–1.05) |
ADL, activity of daily living; OR, odds ratio.
The following factors were included in the model as confounders: age, sex, body mass index, treatment year, number of hospital beds, main disease, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Barthel Index, Japan Coma Scale, type of admission, presence of surgery, blood transfusion, intensive care unit admission, artificial respirator use, and blood purification therapy
The reference group was the target‐not‐achieved group.
The reference group was the target‐partially‐achieved group.
In addition, the adjusted OR (95% CI) for in‐hospital mortality among patients who reached the target dose of both energy and amino acids was 0.63 (0.60–0.68) with reference to those who did not reach the target of either nutrient.
Discussion
This was the first study assessing clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients exclusively receiving PN according to their nutrition achievement in PN prescription at an early stage. The risk for in‐hospital mortality was lower in patients whose prescribed PN dose partially or fully satisfied the target PN doses in accordance with the nutrition guidelines, compared with those who did not satisfy the target doses. The risk for deteriorated ADL was lower in patients whose prescribed PN dose fully satisfied the target doses compared with those whose prescription doses partially or did not satisfy the target doses.
Our results were consistent with previous studies. A randomized controlled trial showed that individualized nutrition support to achieve energy and protein goals for hospitalized patients at nutrition risk improved clinical outcomes, compared with standard hospital food. 19 Positive clinical outcomes, such as suppressed muscle wasting, 24 decreased nosocomial infections, 25 and lowered in‐hospital mortality, 26 were also reported among critically ill patients when nutrient doses were monitored and adjusted to maintain nutrition targets. In addition, increased protein and energy intakes were associated with lower mortality in nutritionally high‐risk patients. 27 Although the nutrition risk was not assessable, patients at nutrition risk were presumably included in the present study given that patients had received PN alone for longer than 10 days and that those who were aged ≥70 years and whose BMI was <18.5 kg/m2 accounted for 70.2% and 31.3% of the study population, respectively. Therefore, patients with adequate PN management to reach their nutrition targets showed better prognosis in this study. However, it should be noted that the identification of patients at risk of refeeding syndrome is important, and so is the slow initiation of feeding according to the risk. 28 Further awareness of nutrition management may lead to better prognoses in patients receiving PN.
Previous studies have shown that insufficient energy intake did not affect clinical outcomes 29 , 30 , 31 and early achievement of energy goal increased complications 32 in critically ill patients. However, the association between protein administration and clinical outcomes was not investigated in these previous studies. Although the present study was not limited to critically ill patients, the risk for in‐hospital mortality was lower among patients who reached the target doses of both energy and amino acids compared with those who did not reach the target of either nutrient. In fact, other studies reported that higher intake of protein was associated with lower mortality in critically ill patients 33 , 34 or patients who achieved both energy and protein targets were associated with lower mortality than those who reached neither target. 20 Taking into account our results and results of these previous studies, even though the target patients were not parallel, it is indicated that adequate administration of energy, amino acids, and lipid, or at least energy and amino acids, may improve clinical outcomes in patients receiving PN.
There were some limitations in this study. First, our results may not be applicable to patients receiving PN outside acute care hospitals in Japan because the data used in this study only included patients who were admitted to acute care hospitals in Japan. In addition, BMI of the overall patients receiving PN was lower (mean, 20.5 kg/m2) than that of previous reports from Western countries. 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 Our results may also not be generalizable to the Western population. Second, readmission may be underestimated. As the database is hospital‐based, readmissions to other hospitals cannot be identified. Third, the actual volume of nutrients administered to patients may be overestimated, as well as the target achievement. The prescribed volume of nutrients was considered as intake of nutrients; however, the volume of disposed waste solution cannot be identified in the database. Fourth, the amount of nutrients required for the patient may be inaccurate. The energy and amino acid doses were calculated based on the body weight at admission. Some researchers recommend indirect calorimetry to determine energy dose 35 , 36 and the patients’ physical capabilities and activities to determine the amino acid dose. 37 Fifth, although the present study extracted all the potential factors affecting clinical outcomes from the database for inclusion in the study, clinical information (such as severities of diseases and results of laboratory tests) was unavailable. Regardless of the possible adjustments including severity, there may, however, be residual confounders. It should also be noted that the causal relationship between nutrition achievement and clinical outcomes could not be assessed in this study because of the observational nature of the study. Our results should be interpreted with caution given these limitations.
In conclusion, in‐hospital mortality was lower and deteriorated ADL was suppressed in patients whose PN management was conducted in accordance with the nutrition guidelines. Further awareness toward nutrition management is suggested for better prognosis in patients receiving PN.
Statement of Authorship
Y. Sasabuchi conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the data, and drafted and critically revised the article. S. Ono conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the data, and critically revised the article. A. Kuroda conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the data, and critically revised the article. S. Kamoshita conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the data, and drafted and critically revised the article. T. Tsuda conceptualized and designed the study, interpreted the data, and critically revised the article. All authors gave final approval of the version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of work ensuring integrity and accuracy.
Supporting information
Supporting Information
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Inc. The statistical analysis was supported by Tetsumi Toyoda, Clinical Study Support, Inc; and medical writing was supported by Mika Kawaguchi, Clinical Study Support, Inc, under contract with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Inc.
Financial disclosure: Y. Sasabuchi reports grants from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Inc, during the conduct of the study.
Conflicts of interest: Y. Sasabuchi reports personal fees from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Inc, outside the submitted work. S. Kamoshita, T. Tsuda, and A. Kuroda report personal fees from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Inc, outside the submitted work. S. Ono has nothing to disclose.
References
- 1. Norman K, Pichard C, Lochs H, Pirlich M. Prognostic impact of disease‐related malnutrition. Clin Nutr. 2008;27(1):5‐15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Correia MI, Hegazi RA, Higashiguchi T, et al. Evidence‐based recommendations for addressing malnutrition in health care: an updated strategy from the feedM.E. Global Study Group. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2014;15(8):544‐550. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Correia M, Perman MI, Waitzberg DL. Hospital malnutrition in Latin America: A systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(4):958‐967. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Higashiguchi T, Arai H, Claytor LH, et al. Taking action against malnutrition in Asian healthcare settings: an initiative of a Northeast Asia Study Group. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2017;26(2):202‐211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Agarwal E, Ferguson M, Banks M, Bauer J, Capra S, Isenring E. Nutritional status and dietary intake of acute care patients: results from the Nutrition Care Day Survey 2010. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(1):41‐47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Lim SL, Ong KC, Chan YH, Loke WC, Ferguson M, Daniels L. Malnutrition and its impact on cost of hospitalization, length of stay, readmission and 3‐year mortality. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(3):345‐350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Sorensen J, Kondrup J, Prokopowicz J, et al. EuroOOPS: an international, multicentre study to implement nutritional risk screening and evaluate clinical outcome. Clin Nutr. 2008;27(3):340‐349. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Japanese Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Guidelines for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. 3rd ed. Japanese Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Sobotka L, Schneider SM, Berner YN, et al. ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: geriatrics. Clin Nutr. 2009;28(4):461‐466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Worthington P, Balint J, Bechtold M, et al. When is parenteral nutrition appropriate? JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017;41(3):324‐377. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Mirtallo J, Canada T, Johnson D, et al. Safe practices for parenteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2004;28(6):S39‐70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Staun M, Pironi L, Bozzetti F, et al. ESPEN guidelines on parenteral nutrition: home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in adult patients. Clin Nutr. 2009;28(4):467‐479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Wischmeyer PE, Weitzel L, Mercaldi K, et al. Characteristics and current practice of parenteral nutrition in hospitalized patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2013;37(1):56‐67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Sasabuchi Y, Ono S, Kamoshita S, Tsuda T, Murano H, Kuroda A. A survey on total parenteral nutrition in 55,000 hospitalized patients: retrospective cohort study using a medical claims database. Clnical Nutrition ESPEN. 2020;. 39:198‐205. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Adjemian D, Arendt BM, Allard JP. Assessment of parenteral nutrition prescription in Canadian acute care settings. Nutrition. 2018;49:7‐12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Kraft M, Gartner S, Simon P, et al. Quality control of parenteral nutrition in hospitalized patients. Nutrition. 2014;30(2):165‐168. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Ponta ML, Rabbione L, Borgio C, et al. Assessing the appropriateness of parenteral nutrition use in hospitalized patients. A comparison on parenteral nutrition bag prescription in different wards and nutritional outcomes. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2018;25:87‐94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Tamiya H, Yasunaga H, Matusi H, Fushimi K, Akishita M, Ogawa S. Comparison of short‐term mortality and morbidity between parenteral and enteral nutrition for adults without cancer: a propensity‐matched analysis using a national inpatient database. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;102(5):1222‐1228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Schuetz P, Fehr R, Baechli V, et al. Individualised nutritional support in medical inpatients at nutritional risk: a randomised clinical trial. The Lancet. 2019;393(10188):2312‐2321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Weijs PJ, Stapel SN, de Groot SD, et al. Optimal protein and energy nutrition decreases mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a prospective observational cohort study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2012;36(1):60‐68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61‐65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Shigematsu K, Nakano H, Watanabe Y. The eye response test alone is sufficient to predict stroke outcome–reintroduction of Japan Coma Scale: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Quan H, Li B, Couris CM, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(6):676‐682. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Doig GS, Simpson F, Sweetman EA, et al. Early parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients with short‐term relative contraindications to early enteral nutrition: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2013;309(20):2130‐2138. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Heidegger CP, Berger MM, Graf S, et al. Optimisation of energy provision with supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial. The Lancet. 2013;381(9864):385‐393. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Singer P, Anbar R, Cohen J, et al. The tight calorie control study (TICACOS): a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot study of nutritional support in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(4):601‐609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Compher C, Chittams J, Sammarco T, Nicolo M, Heyland DK. Greater protein and energy intake may be associated with improved mortality in higher risk critically ill patients: a multicenter, multinational observational study. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(2):156‐163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. da Silva JS, Seres DS, Sabino K, et al. ASPEN Consensus Recommendations for Refeeding Syndrome. Nutr Clin Pract. 2020;35(2):178‐195. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Arabi YM, Aldawood AS, Haddad SH, et al. Permissive underfeeding or standard enteral feeding in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(25):2398‐2408. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. National Heart L, Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials N; Rice TW, et al. Initial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury: the EDEN randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307(8):795‐803. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. TARGET Investigators for the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group ; Chapman M, Peake SL, et al. Energy‐Dense versus Routine Enteral Nutrition in the Critically Ill. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(19):1823‐1834. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Casaer MP, Mesotten D, Hermans G, et al. Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):506‐517. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Allingstrup MJ, Esmailzadeh N, Wilkens Knudsen A, et al. Provision of protein and energy in relation to measured requirements in intensive care patients. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(4):462‐468. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Nicolo M, Heyland DK, Chittams J, Sammarco T, Compher C. Clinical outcomes related to protein delivery in a critically ill population: a multicenter, multinational observation study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(1):45‐51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Tatucu‐Babet OA, Ridley EJ, Tierney AC. Prevalence of underprescription or overprescription of energy needs in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults as determined by indirect calorimetry: a systematic literature review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(2):212‐225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Zusman O, Kagan I, Bendavid I, Theilla M, Cohen J, Singer P. Predictive equations versus measured energy expenditure by indirect calorimetry: A retrospective validation. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(3):1206‐1210. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Deutz NE, Bauer JM, Barazzoni R, et al. Protein intake and exercise for optimal muscle function with aging: recommendations from the ESPEN Expert Group. Clin Nutr. 2014;33(6):929‐936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Supporting Information