Cetin Türker, Arpaci Fikret, Dere Yüksel, Turan Mustafa, Oztürk Bekir, Kömürcü Seref, Ozet Ahmet, Beyzadeoğlu Murat, Kaptan Kürşad, Beyan Cengiz, Yalçin Atilla
Department of Hematology, Gülhane Military Medical Academy, 06018 Etlik, Ankara, Turkey.
Nutrition. 2002 Jul-Aug;18(7-8):599-603. doi: 10.1016/s0899-9007(02)00779-7.
One of the major challenges in the post-transplant period is nutrition. In this prospective, non-randomized study, total parenteral nutrition (TPN) was given to 31 patients and partial parenteral nutrition (PPN) was given to 30 patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for solid tumors or hematologic malignancies to compare the effects of these parenteral nutrition modalities on post-transplant hematological engraftment, blood chemistry, and supportive therapy requirements.
All patients in the TPN group and 17 patients in the PPN group received growth factor in the post-transplant period. Both groups did not differ with respect to sex, age, and reinfused CD34(+) cell numbers.
After transplantation body mass index and body weight decreased significantly in both groups (P < 0.001). Whereas serum albumin concentrations did not decrease significantly in the TPN group, it fell markedly in the PPN group at the end of parenteral nutrition (P = 0.019). After parenteral nutrition, blood chemistry was also remarkable for serum urea and glucose levels, which were elevated significantly in the TPN group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). Patients receiving TPN had a higher incidence of positive microbial cultures and clinical infection than did patients receiving PPN (64.5% versus 40%, P = 0.05). The most striking result was a delay in platelet engraftment for the TPN group compared with the PPN group (15.54 and 12.93 d, respectively; P = 0.014). This difference was also noted in patients using growth factor in the PPN group (P = 0.017). Parallel to these results, platelet transfusion requirement increased in the TPN group compared with the PPN group (1.93 versus 1.16 U, P = 0.004). Both groups were unremarkable for leukocyte recovery and red blood cell transfusion requirement.
Consequently, TPN has some pitfalls of hyperglycemia, infection tendency, delayed platelet engraftment, and increased platelet transfusion requirement. Therefore, it should not be used as a standard nutrition support for patients undergoing autotransplantation.
移植后阶段的主要挑战之一是营养问题。在这项前瞻性、非随机研究中,对31例接受实体瘤或血液系统恶性肿瘤自体造血干细胞移植的患者给予全胃肠外营养(TPN),对30例患者给予部分胃肠外营养(PPN),以比较这些胃肠外营养方式对移植后血液学植入、血液生化指标及支持治疗需求的影响。
TPN组的所有患者及PPN组的17例患者在移植后阶段接受了生长因子治疗。两组在性别、年龄及回输的CD34(+)细胞数量方面无差异。
移植后两组患者的体重指数和体重均显著下降(P < 0.001)。TPN组血清白蛋白浓度未显著下降,而PPN组在胃肠外营养结束时显著降低(P = 0.019)。胃肠外营养后,两组血液生化指标在血清尿素和葡萄糖水平方面也有显著差异,TPN组显著升高(分别为P < 0.001和P = 0.03)。接受TPN的患者微生物培养阳性及临床感染的发生率高于接受PPN的患者(64.5%对40%,P = 0.05)。最显著的结果是,与PPN组相比,TPN组血小板植入延迟(分别为15.54天和12.93天;P = 0.014)。在PPN组中使用生长因子的患者也有此差异(P = 0.017)。与这些结果一致,与PPN组相比,TPN组血小板输注需求增加(1.93单位对1.16单位,P = 0.004)。两组在白细胞恢复及红细胞输注需求方面无显著差异。
因此,TPN存在高血糖、感染倾向、血小板植入延迟及血小板输注需求增加等缺陷。所以,它不应作为自体移植患者的标准营养支持方式。