Premium
Sleep patterns of cyclic parenteral nutrition, a pilot study: are there sleepless nights?
Author(s) -
Scolapio JS,
Savoy AD,
Kaplan J,
Burger CD,
Lin SC
Publication year - 2002
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 - 10.1177/0148607102026003214
Subject(s) - medicine , parenteral nutrition , polysomnography , anesthesia , sleep (system call) , short bowel syndrome , surgery , pediatrics , apnea , computer science , operating system
BACKGROUND: Cyclic home parenteral nutrition (HPN) is 1 of the few medical therapies given during normal nocturnal sleep hours, and it is possible that infusion may alter normal sleep patterns. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the sleep patterns of 5 patients receiving HPN. METHODS: An Epworth sleep questionnaire was completed and wrist Actigraph data were collected before admission to the sleep laboratory. Formal overnight polysomnography was then preformed for 3 consecutive nights. The first night served as the acclimatization period. On the second and third nights, patients were randomized to receive either no infusion or infusion of their standard parenteral nutrition. Results were reported as the median and range and were compared with historical aged‐matched controls. RESULTS: Five patients (3 women and 2 men) with a mean age of 61 years (40 to 73 years) were studied. Patients had been HPN‐dependent for a median of 23 months (4 to 60 months). Patients were receiving HPN because of short bowel syndrome (2), chronic pancreatitis (2), and intestinal pseudoobstruction (1). A 1.5‐liter HPN formula, infused over 10 hours, included approximately 25 kcal/kg/d with 30% lipid and 1.0 to 1.5 g/kg/d of protein. All solutions included multiple trace elements and standard multivitamins. During total parenteral nutrition (TPN) infusion, the percent of sleep efficiency was higher than without infusion, 81% versus 72%. Sleep efficiency in age‐matched controls was approximately 88%. Sleep latency was longer in patients compared with controls, and longer in patients during infusion than without infusion, 35 versus 28 minutes. During TPN infusion, the percent of stage‐1 (2%), stage‐2 (52%), slow‐wave (24%) and random eye movement (REM) sleep (21%) was similar to values during the night without infusion. Controls had lower slow‐wave and REM times. The median Epworth sleep score was 3, which is the normal reported range. CONCLUSIONS: Although sleep quality is reduced in patients receiving HPN compared with aged‐matched controls, sleep quality does not seem to be negatively effected by cyclic HPN infusion.