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.

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.

Gastrostomy vs nasogastric tube feeding in patients with head and neck cancer during radiotherapy alone or combined chemoradiotherapy / Gastrostomía o sonda nasogástrica en pacientes con cáncer de cabeza y cuello durante la radioterapia o tratamiento combinado con quimiorradioterapia

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 vs nasogastric 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 (AU)

Introducción: los pacientes con cáncer de cabeza y cuello (CCC) que reciben radioterapia o tratamiento combinado con radioterapia y quimioterapia presentan una elevada prevalencia de desnutrición. El uso profiláctico de la gastrostomía se ha sugerido para el soporte nutricional enteral en estos pacientes. Sin embargo, otros autores no han demostrado un beneficio claro de esta medida frente al uso de la sonda nasogástrica. Material y métodos: se realizó el estudio en cuarenta pacientes con CCC con desnutrición moderada o grave, a los cuales se les ofreció la gastrostomía percutánea antes de empezar el tratamiento oncológico o bien seguimiento estrecho mediante consejo nutricional y la colocación de una sonda nasogástrica en el momento necesario. Resultados: no se encontraron cambios significativos en cuanto a peso, (p = 0,338), índice de masa corporal (p = 0,314) o proteínas séricas (p= 0,729) durante el seguimiento, y estos cambios tampoco fueron diferentes entre los pacientes con gastrostomía o con sonda nasogástrica. Las calorías recibidas fueron superiores a los requerimientos estimados en ambos grupos, pero no existieron diferencias entre ellos. Los pacientes con gastrostomía recibieron nutrición enteral durante más tiempo (p = 0,007). Conclusiones: tanto la gastrostomía como la sonda nasogástrica son eficaces para el soporte nutricional enteral en pacientes con CCC que reciben radioterapia o tratamiento combinado con quimioterapia y radioterapia, sin mostrar diferencias en la evolución nutricional entre ambas (AU)

Role of parenteral nutrition in oncologic patients with intestinal occlusion and peritoneal carcinomatosis / Papel de la nutrición parenteral en pacientes oncológicos con oclusión intestinal y carcinomatosis peritoneal

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 those who respond to chemotherapy, further administration of home parenteral nutrition together with chemotherapy may enhance prolonged survival (AU)

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 quimioterapia, el uso de la nutrición parenteral domiciliaria, junto con en tratamiento antitumoral activo, aumentan la supervivencia (AU)

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.

Thyroid hormone resistance and pituitary enlargement after thyroid ablation in a woman on levothyroxine treatment.

We report a patient with inappropriate secretion of thyrotropin (TSH) and a pituitary mass. Although she had been treated for biochemical hyperthyroidism with thyroid surgery and radioiodine ablation, she had never complained of specific symptoms or demonstrated signs of overt thyroid dysfunction. On evaluation, she had increased free thyroxine and TSH levels, normal serum glycoprotein alpha-subunit levels, and a significant TSH over-response to exogenous thyrotropin-releasing hormone stimulation. Magnetic resonance imaging with gadolinium enhancement showed a pituitary enlargement with suprasellar extension. An indium In 111 pentetreotide scan showed an abnormal focus of radionuclide accumulation in the pituitary area. Sequencing of the TRbeta gene showed that the patient was heterozygous for a new single nucleotide substitution resulting in the replacement of the normal arginine with a serine at amino acid 320 (R320S). We review the difficulties encountered in establishing a correct diagnosis in patients with inappropriate secretion of TSH in combination with pituitary enlargement. Due to its possible false-negative results, we do not recommend the use of indium In 111 pentetreotide as a tool in the differential diagnosis of inappropriate secretion of TSH.

99MTc-sestamibi as sole technique in selection of primary hyperparathyroidism patients for unilateral neck exploration.

BACKGROUND: Unilateral neck exploration (UNE) is becoming the procedure of choice for treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of (99m)Tc-sestamibi (MIBI) parathyroid scintigraphy as the sole technique in selecting patients for UNE. METHOD: We selected 136 consecutive PHPT patients who had only 1 solitary uptake at a MIBI were for UNE. The technique was a single dual-phase using MIBI and a subtraction technique with (99m)Tc-pertechnetate. Imaging data were correlated with surgical results. RESULTS: In 3 cases, the sestamibi scan was falsely positive, 1 had a contralateral location relative to the uptake, and 2 had multiglandular hyperplasia. Overall, the positive predictive value (PPV) of MIBI for detecting a solitary parathyroid adenoma in patients with 1 solitary uptake was 97.8. Sixteen patients (12%) had evidence of multinodular goiter. Overall, the PPV of MIBI was 98.4% (2 false positive among 120 cases) in patients with no multinodular thyroid disease (MNG) and 93.7% (1 false negative among 16 cases) in patients with MNG. The mean duration of the surgical procedure was 34.17 minutes. Mean hospitalization was 0.6 days. Conversion to bilateral neck exploration was performed in 5 patients. After a period of follow-up of 40 months (range, 6-72 months), the cure rate was 98%. CONCLUSION: Patients with PHPT and unequivocally positive preoperative (99m)Tc-sestamibi can safely be managed with UNE without additional localizing techniques.