Grains or veins : Is Enteral nutrition really better than parenteral nutrition ? a look at the evidence.
Enteral nutrition is said to be better than parenteral nutrition for providing nutrition support to humans.
To assess the literature documenting the assertions that enteral nutrition is superior to parenteral nutrition with respect to cost, safety, physiology, intestinal structure and function, bacterial translocation, and outcome.
Sources included MEDLINE search, personal files, and references from human comparative studies of enteral vs parenteral nutrition.
The goal was to include all human studies directly addressing questions of comparative efficacy of enteral and parenteral nutrition.
Emphasis was given to prospective randomized controlled studies where available.
Retrospective comparisons were not included.
An attempt was made to briefly summarize methodology and findings of relevant studies.
No general attempt was made to assess quality of individual studies.
Results of data synthesis
Enteral nutrition appears to be less expensive than parenteral nutrition, but new economic analyses are needed given the newer aggressive access techniques for enteral nutrition.
Enteral nutrition is associated with meaningful morbidity and mortality.
The little comparative data existent suggest no differences in safety. (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Nutrition, Voie entérale, Voie parentérale, Revue bibliographique, Etude comparative, Analyse coût efficacité, Economie santé, Homme
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Nutrition, Enteral administration, Parenteral administration, Bibliographic review, Comparative study, Cost efficiency analysis, Health economy, Human
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 98-0248416
Code Inist : 002B27B07. Création : 11/09/1998.