RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Variation in access to parenteral nutrition (PN) in patients with intestinal failure secondary to malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) exists due to differing practice, beliefs and resource access. We aimed to examine differences in nutritional care pathways and outcomes, by referral to nutrition team for PN in patients with MBO. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of MBO adults admitted to eight UK hospitals within a year and 1 year follow-up. Demographic, nutritional and medical data were analysed by comparing patients referred (R) or not referred (NR) for PN. Differences between groups were tested by Kruskal-Wallis, Chi-Squared tests and multi-level regression and survival using Cox regression. RESULTS: 232 patients with 347 MBO admissions [median 66yr, (IQR: 55-74yrs), 67 % female], 79/232 patients were referred for PN (R group). Underlying primary malignancies of gynaecological and gastrointestinal origin predominated (71 %) and 78 % with metastases. Those in the NR group were found to be older, weigh more on admission, and more likely to be treated conservatively compared to those in the R group. For 123 (35 %) admissions, patients were referred to a nutrition team, and for 204 (59 %) admissions, patients were reviewed by a dietician. Multi-disciplinary team discussion and dietetic contact were more likely to occur in the R group-123/347 admissions (R vs NR group: 27 % vs. 7 %, P = 0.001; 95 % vs 39 %, P < 0.0001). Median admission weight loss was 8 % (IQR: 0 to 14). 43/123 R group admissions received inpatient PN only, with 32 patients discharged or already established on home parenteral nutrition. Overall survival was 150 days (126-232) with no difference between R/NR groups. CONCLUSION: In this multi-centre study evaluating nutritional care management of patients with malignant bowel obstruction, only 1 in 3 admissions resulted in a referral to the nutrition team for PN, and just over half were reviewed by a dietician. Further prospective research is required to evaluate possible consequences of these differential care pathways on clinical outcomes and quality of life.