ABSTRACT
The role of long-term parenteral support in patients with underlying benign conditions who do not have intestinal failure (IF) is contentious, not least since there are clear benefits in utilising the oral or enteral route for nutritional support. Furthermore, the risks of long-term home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are significant, with significant impacts on morbidity and mortality. There has, however, been a recent upsurge of the use of HPN in patients with conditions such as gastro-intestinal neuromuscular disorders, opioid bowel dysfunction, disorders of gut-brain interaction and possibly eating disorders, who do not have IF. As a result, the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), the European Society of Neuro-gastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the Rome Foundation for Disorders of Gut Brain Interaction felt that a position statement is required to clarify - and hopefully reduce the potential for harm associated with - the use of long-term parenteral support in patients without IF. Consensus opinion is that HPN should not be prescribed for patients without IF, where the oral and/or enteral route can be utilised. On the rare occasions that PN commencement is required to treat life-threatening malnutrition in conditions such as those listed above, it should only be prescribed for a time-limited period to achieve nutritional safety, while the wider multi-disciplinary team focus on more appropriate biopsychosocial holistic and rehabilitative approaches to manage the patient's primary underlying condition.
ABSTRACT
The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Advanced cancer (AC) is increasingly an indication for home parenteral nutrition (HPN) but an area with possible variation in practice between geographical locations. The aims of this study are to explore the views and experiences of international multi-disciplinary teams to determine opinions and practices. METHODS: An online questionnaire was developed with members of the Home Artificial Nutrition and Chronic Intestinal Failure interest group of the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and distributed to colleagues involved in managing patients with AC on HPN. RESULTS: A total of 220 responses were included from 5 continents including 36 countries, with 90% of all responses from Europe. Predicted survival was a key factor influencing the decision to commence HPN for most respondents 152/220 (75%), with the majority of participants reporting that patients should have a predicted survival of ≥3 months if considered for HPN (≥3 months: n = 124, 56% vs. <3 months: n = 47, 21%, p < 0.001). However, most respondents were not confident about predicting overall survival in more than 50% of cases (confident n = 40, 23% vs not confident n = 135, 77%, p < 0.001). Barriers to utilising HPN in AC included colleagues' objections (n = 91, 46%), lack of local expertise (n = 55, 28%) and funding restrictions (n = 34, 17%). CONCLUSIONS: Significant consensus was observed regarding AC as indication for HPN, while areas of variation exist. Survival prognostication is often used as an indication for commencing HPN in people with AC, although the majority of respondents were not confident in prognosticating, suggesting better clinical prognostication tools will be of assistance. Further studies are also required to better understand the obstacles faced by clinical teams to commencing HPN that may explain variations in clinical practice between countries, as well as adressing variation in funding.
