Premium
Impact of Preoperative Short‐Term Parenteral Nutrition Support on the Clinical Outcome of Gastric Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis
Author(s) -
Xu LiBin,
Huang ZeXin,
Zhang HuiHui,
Chen XiaoDong,
Zhang WeiTeng,
Shi MingMing,
Ma YuNing,
Shen XinChen,
Lin JiangTao,
Cai YiQi,
Shen Xian
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.935
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 1941-2444
pISSN - 0148-6071
DOI - 10.1002/jpen.1944
Subject(s) - medicine , parenteral nutrition , propensity score matching , gastroenterology , incidence (geometry) , statistical significance , clinical significance , subgroup analysis , anastomosis , surgery , confidence interval , physics , optics
Objectives Nutrition status is of great significance to the clinical outcome after major abdominal surgery. However, the effect of preoperative short‐term parenteral nutrition (PN) support among gastric cancer (GC) patients remains unknown and was evaluated in the current study. Methods We retrospectively analyzed 455 nutritionally at‐risk GC patients after radical resection from 2010 to 2016. We matched patients with 3–7 days of PN support to those without PN support. χ 2 And Mann‐Whitney U tests were used to compare differences between the PN and control groups. Results The propensity‐matched sample included 368 GC patients (PN group, n = 184; control group, n = 184). The PN and control groups did not differ regarding postoperative complications ( P = .528). The incidence of anastomotic leakage in the PN group was lower than in the control group ( P = .011), whereas other complications were not found to differ between the groups. The hospitalization cost of the PN group was significantly higher than that of the control group ( P < .001), whereas other outcome indicators were similar. Subgroup analysis showed that short‐term PN support may have an improved benefit for patients with serum albumin level <35 g/L, but not at the level of statistical significance ( P = .17). Conclusion Short‐term PN support did not significantly improve the short‐term clinical outcomes of nutritionally at‐risk GC patients, with the exception of a lower incidence of anastomotic leakage. Considering that short‐term PN support increases economic burden, PN should not be the preferred method among these patients.