[An analysis of an enteral nutrition guideline in patients with cancer of the ORL area].
OBJECTIVE
The result was assessed of the enteral nutrition guideline prescribed in 50 patients using internationally accepted parameters as indicators of the nutritional state.


METHODS
Fifty patients were selected at random with an ORL zone neoplasm, they were prescribed enteral nutrition according to our Section's procedure, involving the administration of a commercialized enteral diet whose composition is a homogenization of natural foods administered in 6 sessions at three-hour intervals during the day, begun with 100 cc of diet per session up to a total of 400 (2400 kcal/day), and with the addition of 100 cm of water in each administration. The average age was 59.58 +/- 11.2 years (range 30-81), the average duration of nutrition was 34.02 +/- 32.1 days (range, 3-201 days). The following were taken in all cases: Weight (W), Size (S), Tricipital fold (TF), brachial circumference, urinary creatinin, seric albumin (A), seric transferrin (T), total lymphocytes (Lt) and retarded cutaneous sensitivity, using Multitest IMC (M), and these data were used to calculate muscular circumference (MC) and the creatinin size index (CSI). Two nutritional valuations (NV) were analyzed, the first one taken (NV1) and the one prior to discharge (V2). Analytical calculations were done by our Center's Analytical Laboratory. We used Wilcoxon's test included in the SX statistical package for statistical analysis.


RESULTS
On the fifty patients selected, only thirty had a second NV. Comparison of the two calculations gave the following results: A statistically significant rise of A (A1: 3.6 +/- 0.8, vs A: 3.8 +/- 0.7; p < 0.0001) and of T (T1: 208.2 +/- 52.0, vs T2: 237.5 +/- 44.39; p < 0.0001). There was also a statistically significant reduction of P (P1: 63.93 +/- 12.32 vs P2: 62.88 +/- 11.28; p < 0.04). Comparison of the remaining variables did not provide statistically significant differences: PT (PT1: 11.46 +/- 4.9 vs PT2: 12.07 +/- 4.6; p > 0.05). MC (MC1: 23.93 +/- 2.5 vs MC2: 23.58 +/- 1.9; P > 0.05). CSI (CSI1: 8.5 +/- 8 vs CSI2: 6.9 +/- 2.9; p > 0.05). L (L1: 1855 +/- 760.5 vs L2: 1808 +/- 769.1; p > 0.05). M (M1: 12.58 +/- 7.8 vs M2: 14.01 +/- 8.5; p > 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
It is deduced from the results that the guideline used is useful in maintaining the nutritional state of patients prior to their treatment, despite weight-loss, since the ratio of weight-loss to the time between NV1 and NV2 is not significant.
Fernández Alvarez
J A
JA
Sección de Dietética y Nutrición (Servicio de Endocrinología y Nutrición), Hospital Xeral de Galicia, España.
Mouriño Ramos
B
B
Quintela Vázquez
P
P
Martínez Fernández
M L
ML
Muñoz Leira
V
V
Camarero González
E
E
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D004750:Enteral Nutrition / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D015596:Nutrition Assessment; D010039:Otorhinolaryngologic Neoplasms / Q000628:therapy*; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D015431:Weight Loss
Análisis de una pauta de nutrición enteral en pacientes con cáncer del área ORL.