The Role of Total Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Prognostic Value of the Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) Score in Patients Who Underwent Cytoreductive Surgery Combined with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

The Controlling Nutritional Status (CONUT) score is a novel nutritional index that integrates the serum albumin level, peripheral blood lymphocyte count, and total cholesterol level. This retrospective study explores its prognostic significance in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC). We included 436 patients who underwent CRS-HIPEC, categorized into low (0-3) and high (4-12) CONUT score groups, and performed logistic regression analysis to predict one-year mortality and postoperative morbidity. Our findings revealed that high CONUT scores correlate with increased one-year mortality (47.1% vs. 20.3%, p < 0.001) and morbidity (39.2% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001) compared to low CONUT scores. Multivariable regression analysis confirmed high CONUT scores as independent predictors of one-year mortality (odds ratio: 2.253, 95% CI: 1.014-5.005, p = 0.046) and postoperative morbidity (odds ratio: 2.201, 95% CI: 1.066-4.547, p = 0.033). These results underscore the CONUT score's effectiveness as an independent marker for evaluating risks associated with CRS-HIPEC, emphasizing its potential to improve risk stratification.

[Home parenteral nutrition in patients with malignant bowel obstruction. Ethical considerations]

Introduction

Background: patients with cancer are one of the main group of patients on home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Patients with malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) represent a challenging group when considering HPN. At the Ethics Working Group of SENPE ethical considerations on this subject were reviewed and a guidelines proposal was made. Methods: a literature search was done and a full set of questions arose: When, if ever, is HPN indicated for patients with MBO? How should the training program be? When withdrawal of HPN should be considered? Other questions should be also taken into consideration. May any Oncologist send home a patient with HPN? The educational program could be shortened? When considering to withdraw parenteral nutrition? Results: HPN in MBO has better outcomes when patients have a good functional status (Karnofsky ≥ 50 or ECOG ≤ 2), expected survival > 2-3 months, and low inflammatory markers. Very few data have been reported on quality of life, but HPN allows a valuable time at home albeit with a considerable burden for both patients and their families. Proposal: once a patient is considered for HPN, there is a need for a deep talk on the benefits, complications and risks. In this initial talk, when HNP should be stopped needs to be included. The palliative care team with the help of the nutrition support team should follow the patient, whose clinical status must be assessed regularly. HPN should be withdrawn when no additional benefits are achieved. Conclusion: HPN may be considered an option in patients with MBO when they have a fair or good functional status and a desire to spend their last days at home.

Nutrition Care for the Patient Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

The treatment for peritoneal malignancies has evolved over the years with the growing success of cytoreductive surgery combined with the use of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Patients receiving this treatment are at risk for developing malnutrition not only due to the areas of tumor involvement but also due to the risk of undernutrition if nutritional interventions are not timely or fall short of their goal. Malnutrition leads to a gamut of health consequences. Understanding peritoneal malignancies, cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, as well as the latest nutrition research may lead to a focus on the prevention or attenuation of the procedure's associated malnutrition risk. Reducing the effects of malnutrition in these patients is the goal of the nutrition support practitioner.

Use of Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) as a Vehicle for Drug Delivery

Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) is a method of providing nutrients directly into the bloodstream for individuals who are unable to meet their nutritional needs through the normal digestive process or gastrointestinal system. It provides macronutrients and micronutrients in a single container, reducing handling and contamination risks and making it more cost-effective. TPN has the potential to be used as a drug delivery system, with applications in combination therapies, personalized medicine, and integrating advanced technologies. It can enhance drug dosage precision and provide nutritional assistance, potentially reducing hospitalization and improving patient outcomes. However, implementing new applications requires thorough testing and regulatory approval. TPN could be particularly useful in pediatric and geriatric care and could also contribute to global health by combating malnutrition in areas with limited medical resources. Healthcare professionals prepare a sterile solution tailored to each patient's nutritional needs, and administration involves a central venous catheter. However, the simultaneous administration of medications with PN admixtures can result in pharmacological incompatibility, which can impact the stability of the oil-in-water system. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommendations advise against including non-nutrient drugs in PN admixtures due to safety concerns. This review focuses on the utilization of Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) as a method for delivering drugs. It discusses the benefits and difficulties associated with its commercial application and offers suggestions for future research endeavors.

Comprehensive Evaluation of Clinical Application of Balanced Compound Amino Acid Injection

Background

To provide a reference for hospital drug selection and rational clinical drug selection based on the evaluation of the safety, nutritional quality, and economy of 27 manufacturers of five varieties (18AA, 18AA-I, 18AA-II, 18AA-IV, 18AA-V) of balanced compound amino acids for injection and (18AA-II_{original research}).

Methods

The safety of compound amino acids for injection was evaluated by comparing the antioxidant sulfite contents. Based on the amino acid scoring standard mode and the whole egg protein mode as proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) in 1973, we compared the formula. The first limiting amino acid content and the comprehensive quality of the total essential amino acid (EAA) contents of the six formulations were studied. The price/content ratio was used to evaluate their economy.

Results

Similar variety produced by different manufacturers have the same formula and contents of balanced compound amino acids for injection. Safety: 18AA-II_{original research} and 18AA-II had the lowest sulfite content. Compared with 18AA-II_{original research}, the sulfite content of 18AA-I, 18AA, 18AA-V, and 18AA-IV were higher (10 times, 16.67 times, 16.67 times, and 33.33 times, respectively). The lower the sulfite content, the safer the product. Nutritional quality: The proportions of amino acids in the five varieties of compound amino acid injection were all suitable. The order of the first limiting amino acids for the formulations was 18AA-II_{original research} = 18AA-II>18AA >18AA-I = 18AA-IV>18AA-V. The order of the EAA values for the formulations was 18AA-II_{original research} = 18AA-II>18AA>18AA-I > 18AA-IV > 18AA-V. The overall effectiveness order was 18AA-II_{original research} = 18AA-II>18AA > 18AA-I>18AA-IV>18AA-V. Economy: Among the 27 manufacturers, 12 manufacturers had a price/content ratio higher than that of 18AA-II original research manufacturers, and 15 manufacturers had a price/content ratio lower than original research manufacturers.

Conclusion

Through its security, effectiveness, and economy of the comprehensive research, we recommended 18AA-II and 18AA-IIoriginal research with high safety, efficacy, and reasonable price as the first choice. 18AA and 18AA-I with better safety and reasonable price, secondary recommendation. 18AA-IV or 18AA-V with poor safety, efficacy, and economy are not recommended.