Catheter-related bloodstream infections in palliative care patients receiving parenteral nutrition by medical home care

High-protein home parenteral nutrition in malnourished oncology patients: a systematic literature review

INTRODUCTION

Up to 83% of oncology patients are affected by cancer-related malnutrition, depending on tumour location and patient age. Parenteral nutrition can be used to manage malnutrition, but there is no clear consensus as to the optimal protein dosage. The objective of this systematic literature review (SLR) was to identify studies on malnourished oncology patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN) where protein or amino acid delivery was reported in g/kg bodyweight/day, and to compare outcomes between patients receiving low (< 1 g/kg bodyweight/day), standard (1-1.5 g/kg/day), and high-protein doses (> 1.5 g/kg/day).

METHODS

Literature searches were performed on 5th October 2021 in Embase, MEDLINE, and five Cochrane Library and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases. Searches were complemented by hand-searching of conference proceedings, a clinical trial registry, and bibliographic reference lists of included studies and relevant SLRs/meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Nineteen publications were included; sixteen investigated standard protein, two reported low protein, and one included both, but none assessed high-protein doses. Only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) was identified; all other studies were observational studies. The only study to compare two protein doses reported significantly greater weight gain in patients receiving 1.15 g/kg/day than those receiving 0.77 g/kg/day.

CONCLUSION

At present, there is insufficient evidence to determine the optimal protein dosage for malnourished oncology patients receiving HPN. Data from non-HPN studies and critically ill patients indicate that high-protein interventions are associated with increased overall survival and quality of life; further studies are needed to establish whether the same applies in malnourished oncology patients.

Complications of Central Venous Access Devices Used in Palliative Care Settings for Terminally Ill Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Central venous access devices (CVADs) have been commonly employed during various courses of anticancer treatment. Currently, there are a few types of clinically available CVADs, which are associated with short-term and long-term complications. However, little is known about the complication rates when CVADs are used only in palliative care settings. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all the published literature to evaluate the complication rates of CVADs in this clinical setting. (2) Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to identify publications from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase (Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and trial registries. Publications reporting the complication rates of PICCs, central lines, and PORTs in palliative settings for terminally ill cancer patients were included, while those on the use of systemic anticancer therapy and peripheral venous catheters were excluded. The outcome measures included overall complication rate, rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI), and rate of thromboembolism (TE). This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023404489). (3) Results: Five publications with 327 patients were analyzed, including four studies on PICCs and one study on central lines. No studies on PORTs were eligible for analysis. The overall complication rate for PICCs (pooled estimate 7.02%, 95% CI 0.27-19.10) was higher than that for central lines (1.44%, 95% CI 0.30-4.14, p = 0.002). The risk of CRBSI with PICCs (2.03%, 95% CI 0.00-9.62) was also higher than that with central lines (0.96%, 95% CI 0.12-3.41, p = 0.046). PICCs also had a trend of a higher risk of TE (2.10%, 95% CI 0.00-12.22) compared to central lines (0.48%, 95% CI 0.01-2.64, p = 0.061). (4) Conclusions: PICCs for palliative cancer care were found to have greater complications than central lines. This might aid in the formulation of future recommendation guidelines on the choice of CVAD in this setting.

Equal effect of vancomycin lock with or without heparin in treatment of central venous catheter related blood stream infections - an observational study in palliative home care

BACKGROUND

Catheter related blood stream infections is a complication in patients with central venous catheter. The aim of this study was to compare vancomycin-heparin-lock and non-heparin, high-dose vancomycin-lock as treatment in patients admitted to palliative home care. With non-heparin, high-dose vancomycin-lock a high concentration of 5 mg/mL vancomycin is attained instead of only 500 ug/mL when dissolved in heparin. The non-heparin method also has the advantage of being easier and cheaper but might entail an increased risk of clotting.

METHODS

Medical records from patients enrolled at a palliative home care unit in Stockholm between 2016 and 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. Three divisions used vancomycin-heparin-lock and the other 3 divisions used non-heparin, high-dose vancomycin-lock. Inclusion criteria were a central venous catheter related blood stream infection treated with one of the two methods for >7 days and a follow-up blood culture at the end of treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 12 treated with vancomycin-heparin-lock and 13 with non-heparin, high-dose vancomycin-lock. There was no significant difference in resolved infections between the two treatments, 6 of 12 for vancomycin-heparin-lock and 10 of 13 for non-heparin, high-dose vancomycin-lock (p = .23). In the non-heparin group one central venous catheter was removed due to clotting although the infection had resolved. Overall, removal of central venous catheter was similar in the two groups (6 of 12 and 4 of 13, p = .43).

CONCLUSION

The current study does not support superiority of one treatment over the other. However, larger, randomized studies are needed, before firm conclusions can be drawn.