Infectious Complications in Home Parenteral Nutrition: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Peripherally-Inserted Central Catheters with Other Central Catheters.

BACKGROUND: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) has become a common therapy. There is still controversy regarding the possibility that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) may diminish catheter-related blood stream infection (CRBSI) rates. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database for studies reporting the rates of CRBSI with HPN. Study selection was performed independently by three investigators. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by consensus or by arbitration by an author not involved in the search. The National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Meta-analyses were performed using MetaXL 5.3 with the quality effects model. RESULTS: Screening of the article titles and abstracts yielded 134 full text articles for evaluation. Only three prospective studies that included appropriate data were considered for the final analysis. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.41 (0.14-1.17) for PICC vs. tunneled catheters. The relative risk of the CRBSI rate was 0.16 (0.04-0.64) for PICC vs. ports. The relative risk of the thrombosis rate was 3.16 (0.20-49.67) for PICCs vs. tunneled. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to show a difference in CRBSI rates between PICCs and tunneled catheters. On the other hand, PICCs showed lower CRBSI rates than ports. There was also no difference in the rate of catheter-related thrombosis and mechanical complications.

Infectious complications in home parenteral nutrition: A long-term study with peripherally inserted central catheters, tunneled catheters, and ports.

OBJECTIVE: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) has become a common therapy, with tunneled central venous catheters (CVCs) being the preferred route of administration. Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) have been used increasingly, but whether they should be preferred over other types of CVCs is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate catheter-related complications of CVC in patients receiving HPN. METHODS: All patients treated at our center for HPN from 2007 to 2017 were prospectively included. A specialized intravenous therapy team took care of these patients. Catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) were confirmed with positive, simultaneous, differential blood cultures drawn through the CVC and peripheral vein and then semiquantitative or quantitative culture of the catheter tip. RESULTS: In all, 151 patients received HPN during the 11-y study period. Of these patients, 95 were women (63%) and 55 were men (37%), with a mean age of 58 ± 13 y. Twenty-six were non-cancer patients (17%) and the remaining 125 patients had an underlying malignancy (83%). Regarding the CVC, 116 were PICCs, 18 Hickman, and 36 ports. Confirmed CRBSI per catheter-days showed 0.15 episodes per 1000 catheter-days for PICCs, 0.72 for Hickman, and 2.02 for ports. PICCs had less-confirmed CRBSIs per 1000 catheter-days than ports (φ = 0.54, P = 0.005), but no difference between PICCs and Hickman was found (φ = 0.32, P = 0.110). Confirmed episodes of CRBSI (2 versus 13%, χ2 = 6.625, P = 0.036) were more frequent with multilumen catheters. CONCLUSIONS: In our setting, single-lumen PICC and Hickman catheters showed low infectious complications.

[Intracavitary electrocardiogram (IC-ECG) guidance for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement]. / Colocación de catéteres centrales de inserción periférica (PICC) mediante control electrocardiográfico intracavitario (ECG-IC) de la punta del catéter.

INTRODUCTION: intracavitary electrocardiogram (IC-ECG) guidance has been recently proposed for peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) placement since it may reduce the time of placement and avoid radiological control. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate IC-ECG compared to conventional radiological control. METHOS: prospective study of 532 consecutive patients. Those with arrhythmias or on antiarrhythmic drugs were excluded. In all cases, PICC tip placement was checked by IC-ECG guidance and by a chest X-ray, which was considered as the reference test. RESULTS: PICC placement with IC-ECG guidance was achieved in 96.8% of patients (applicability). PICC correct placement according to IC-ECG guidance was confirmed by chest X-ray in 94% of patients (accuracy). In 13 patients (2.7%) the catheter had to be repositioned after radiological control. The κ concordance index was 0.356 (p < 0.001). The IC-ECG sensitivity was 0.98, with a PPV of 0.97 and a positive likelihood ratio of 1.5. However, the specificity was only 0.35 with a NPV of 0.41 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.06. CONCLUSION: PICC placement by IC-ECG guidance is plausible, safe, presents adequate indexes of validity and reliability, and allows reducing the time of catheter placement. However, radiological verification is still necessary, especially in cases of negative or uncertain ECG.

INTRODUCCIÓN: recientemente se ha planteado la posibilidad de comprobar la colocación de los catéteres centrales de inserción periférica (PICC) mediante control electrocardiográfico intracavitario (ECG-IC) ya que permitiría disminuir el tiempo de colocación y evitaría el control radiológico. OBJETIVO: evaluación de dicho método frente al control radiológico habitual. MÉTODOS: estudio prospectivo en el que se incluyeron 532 pacientes de forma consecutiva. Se excluyeron aquellos pacientes con arritmias o en tratamiento con fármacos antiarrítmicos. En todos los casos se comprobó la colocación de la punta del PICC mediante control ECG-IC y mediante la realización de una radiografía de tórax, que fue considerada método de referencia. RESULTADOS: la colocación del PICC gracias al control ECG-IC (aplicabilidad) fue del 96,8%. La correcta colocación del PICC gracias a la interpretación del ECG-IC se confirmó en un 94% de los casos con la radiografía de tórax (precisión). En 13 pacientes (2,7%) se requirió la recolocación del catéter tras el control radiológico. El índice κ de concordancia fue de 0,356 (p < 0,001). La sensibilidad del método ECG fue de 0,98, con un VPP de 0,97 y un cociente de probabilidad positivo de 1,5. Sin embargo, la especificidad fue solo del 0,35 con un VPN de 0,41 y un cociente de probabilidad negativo de 0,06. CONCLUSIÓN: la comprobación de la colocación de los PICC mediante ECG-IC es plausible, segura, presenta unos índices de validez/fiabilidad adecuados y permitiría disminuir el tiempo de colocación del catéter. Sin embargo, la comprobación radiológica sigue siendo necesaria, especialmente en los casos de ECG negativo o dudoso.

Gastrostomy vs nasogastric tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer during radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy

INTRODUCTION: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) submitted to radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy present a high prevalence of malnutrition at baseline. Prophylactic use of gastrostomy has been suggested for these patients for delivering enteral nutrition. On the other hand, other authors have failed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this measure over nasogastric tube feeding. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We studied 40 patients with HNC with moderate or severe malnutrition who were offered either prophylactic percutaneous gastrostomy before starting oncologic treatment or close follow-up with nutritional counseling with the placement of a nasogastric tube when necessary. RESULTS: There were no significant changes throughout the study period in weight (p = 0.338), body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.314) or serum proteins (p = 0.729), and these changes showed no differences between the gastrostomy vsnasogastric tube feeding groups. The amount of delivered energy was above the estimated energy needs with both gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding, but there were no differences in the total energy provided by enteral nutrition between groups. Patients in the gastrostomy group received enteral nutrition support for a longer period of time (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Both gastrostomy and nasogastric tube feeding are effective methods of delivering enteral nutrition in patients with HNC submitted to radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy, with no differences between them in terms of avoiding further nutritional deterioration.

ROLE OF PARENTERAL NUTRITION IN ONCOLOGIC PATIENTS WITH INTESTINAL OCCLUSION AND PERITONEAL CARCINOMATOSIS.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: the precise role of parenteral nutrition in the management of oncologic patients with intestinal occlusion is not well defined yet. We aimed to identify the effects of parenteral nutrition in these patients regarding prognosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 55 patients with intestinal occlusion and peritoneal carcinomatosis were included. Parenteral nutrition aimed at 20-35 kcal/Kg/day, and 1.0 g/kg/day of amino-acids. Weight, body mass index, type of tumor, type of chemotherapy, and ECOG among others were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: 69.1% of the patients had gastrointestinal tumors, 18.2% gynecologic and 12.7% others. Age was 60 ± 13y, baseline ECOG 1.5 ± 0.5 and body mass index 21.6 ± 4.3. Malnutrition was present in 85%. Survival from the start of parenteral nutrition was not significant when considering baseline ECOG (log rank = 0.593, p = 0.743), previous lines of chemotherapy (log rank = 2.117, p = 0.548), baseline BMI (log rank = 2.686, p = 0.261), or type of tumor (log rank = 2.066, p = 0.356). Survival in patients who received home parenteral nutrition after hospital discharge was higher than those who stayed in-hospital (log rank = 7.090, p = 0.008). Survival in patients who started chemotherapy during or after parenteral nutrition was higher than those who did not so (log rank = 17.316, p < 0.001). A total of 3.6% of patients presented catheter related infection without affecting survival (log rank = 0.061, p = 0.804). CONCLUSIONS: Parenteral nutrition in patients with advanced cancer and intestinal occlusion is safe, and in tho se who respond to chemotherapy, further administration of home parenteral nutrition together with chemotherapy may enhance prolonged survival.

Introducción y objetivos: el papel preciso de la nutrición parenteral en el manejo de los pacientes oncológicos con obstrucción intestinal no está bien definido todavía. El objetivo del presente trabajo es evaluar los efectos de la nutrición parenteral en este tipo de pacientes en cuanto al pronóstico. Material y métodos: fueron incluidos 55 pacientes con obstrucción intestinal y carcinomatosis peritoneal. La nutrición parenteral proporcionó 20-35 kcal/Kg/día y 1.0 g/kg/día de aminoácidos. El peso, el IMC, el tipo de tumor, el tipo de quimioterapia recibida y el ECOG, entre otras variables, fueron recogidas y analizadas. Resultados: un 69,1% de los pacientes presentaban tumors gastrointestinales, un 18,2% ginecológicos y otros tumores el 12,7% restante. La edad media fue de 60 ± 13 años, con un ECOG basal de 1,5 ± 0,5 y un IMC de 21,6 ± 4,3. La presencia de malnutrición fue de un 85%. La supervivencia desde el inicio de la nutrición parenteral no fue significativamente distinta entre los pacientes al considerar su ECOG basal (log rank = 0,593, p = 0,743), las líneas previas de quimioterapia recibida (log rank = 2,117, p = 0,548), el IMC basal (log rank = 2,686, p = 0,261), o el tipo de tumor (log rank = 2,066, p = 0,356). La supervivencia en los pacientes en que fue posible el alta hospitalaria con nutrición parenteral fue superior (log rank = 7,090, p = 0,008). La supervivencia en los pacientes en que se inició la quimioterapia durante o tras iniciar la nutrición parenteral fue también superior (log rank = 17,316, p < 0,001). Un total de 3,6% de los pacientes presentaron infección relacionada con el catéter sin afectar la supervivencia (log rank = 0,061, p = 0,804). Conclusión: la nutrición parenteral en los pacientes oncológicos con obstrucción intestinal y carcinomatosis peritoneal es segura y, en aquellos que responden a qui mioterapia, el uso de la nutrición parenteral domiciliaria, junto con en tratamiento antitumoral activo, aumentan la supervivencia.

Analysis of IGF(CA)19 and IGFBP3-202A/C gene polymorphisms in patients with acromegaly: association with clinical presentation and response to treatments.

OBJECTIVE: IGF1 and IGFBP3 gene polymorphisms have been recently described. However, their potential role in the setting of acromegaly and its outcome is unknown. In this study, we analyze these polymorphisms in patients with acromegaly and investigate their association with clinical presentation and response to treatments. DESIGN: A retrospective observational study was conducted in patients with acromegaly to analyze IGF1 and IGFBP3 gene polymorphisms. METHODS: A total of 124 patients with acromegaly (57.3% women, mean age 44.9±13.1 years old) were followed up for a period of 11.4±8.0 years in eight tertiary referral hospitals in Spain. Clinical and analytical data were evaluated at baseline and after treatment. IGF1 and IGFBP3 gene polymorphisms were analyzed using PCR and specific primers. RESULTS: Baseline laboratory test results were GH 19.3 (8.0-39.6) ng/ml, nadir GH 11.8 (4.1-21.5) ng/ml, and index IGF1 2.65±1.25 upper limit of normal. Regarding the IGF1 gene polymorphism, we did not find any association between the number of cyto-adenosine (CA) repeats and patients' baseline characteristics. Nevertheless, a trend for higher nadir GH values was observed in patients with <19 CA repeats. Regarding the IGFBP3 polymorphism, the absence of an A allele at the -202 position was associated with a higher baseline IGF1 and a higher prevalence of cancer and polyps. There were no differences in response to therapies according to the specific genotypes. CONCLUSIONS: Polymorphisms in the IGF1 and IGFBP3 genes may not be invariably determinant of treatment outcome in acromegalic patients, but they may be associated with higher nadir GH levels or baseline IGF1, and determine a higher rate of colorectal polyps and cancer.