Efficacy, Safety, and Preparation of Standardized Parenteral Nutrition Regimens: Three-Chamber Bags vs Compounded Monobags - A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blind Clinical Trial

30Citations
Citations of this article
125Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Parenteral nutrition (PN) covering the need for carbohydrates, amino acids, and lipids can either be compounded from single nutrients or purchased as an industrially manufactured ready-to-use regimen. This study compares a commercially available 3-chamber bag (study group) with a conventionally compounded monobag regarding nutrition efficacy, safety, and regimen preparation time. Materials and Methods: This prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted at 5 Chinese hospitals from October 2010-October 2011. Postsurgical patients requiring PN for at least 6 days were randomly assigned to receive the study or control regimen. Plasma concentrations of prealbumin and C-reactive protein (CRP), regimen preparation time, length of hospital stay (LOS), 30-day mortality, safety laboratory parameters, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results: In total, 240 patients (121 vs 119 in study and control groups) participated in this study. Changes in prealbumin concentrations during nutrition support ("Prealb(StudyGroup) = 2.65 mg/dL, P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Yu, J., Wu, G., Tang, Y., Ye, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Efficacy, Safety, and Preparation of Standardized Parenteral Nutrition Regimens: Three-Chamber Bags vs Compounded Monobags - A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blind Clinical Trial. Nutrition in Clinical Practice, 32(4), 545–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0884533617701883

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free