Nutrition support for bone marrow transplant patients.
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002. Bone marrow transplantation involves administration of toxic chemotherapy and infusion of marrow cells. After treatment, patients can develop poor appetite, mucositis and gastrointestinal failure, leading to malnutrition. To prevent this, parenteral nutrition (PN) support is often first choice but is associated with increased risk of infection. Enteral nutrition (EN) is an alternative, as is addition of substrates.


OBJECTIVE
To determine efficacy of EN or PN support for patients receiving bone marrow transplant.


METHODS
Search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL in November 2000 and subsequently June 2006.


METHODS
RCTs that compared one form of nutrition support with another, or control, for bone marrow transplant patients.


METHODS
Twenty nine studies were identified. Data were collected on participants' characteristics; adverse effects; neutropaenia; % change in body weight; graft versus host disease; and survival.


RESULTS
In two studies (82 participants) glutamine mouthwash reduced number of days patients were neutropenic (6.82 days, 95%CI (1.67 to 11.98) P = 0.009) compared with placebo. Three studies reported (103 participants) that patients receiving PN with glutamine had reduced hospital stay, 6.62 d (95%CI 3.47 to 9.77, P = 0.00004) compared with patients receiving standard PN. However, in the update a further study was added (147 participants) which altered the pooled results: duration in hospital may be increased for those who receive PN with additional glutamine - 0.22 days (95%CI (1.29 to 1.72). Two other studies reported that (73 participants) patients receiving PN plus glutamine had reduced incidence of positive blood cultures (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.65, P = 0.006) compared to those receiving standard PN. However, a study from the update (113 participants in total) showed the odds of having a positive blood culture have increased but are still less likely if the patient receives PN with glutamine compared to standard PN (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.04). When patients were given PN versus IV hydration, (25 participants) patients receiving PN had a higher incidence of line infections (OR 21.23, 95%CI 4.15 to 108.73, P = 0.0002) compared to those receiving standard IV fluids. The update identified one study which recognised that (55 participants) those who received IV were likely to spend less time in hospital, 3.30 days (95%CI -0.38 to 6.98, P = 0.08), although this result was not significant. As reported in the original review there remains no evaluable data to properly compare PN with EN.


CONCLUSIONS
In this update an additional study that compared PN and Glutamine versus standard PN showed that the certain benefits of parenteral nutrition with added glutamine compared to standard PN for reducing hospital stay are no longer definite. When PN with glutamine is compared with standard PN, patients may not leave hospital earlier, but do have reduced incidence of positive blood cultures, than those receiving standard PN. Where possible use of intravenous fluids and oral diet should be considered as a preference to parenteral nutrition, however, in the event of a patient suffering severe gastrointestinal failure even with a trial of enteral feeding, PN with the addition of glutamine could be considered.
Murray
Susan M
SM
National Collaborating Centre for Acute Care, Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, UK, WC2A 3PE. suzdmurray@aol.com
Pindoria
Sima
S
D016026:Bone Marrow Transplantation / Q000009:adverse effects*; D004750:Enteral Nutrition; D005440:Fluid Therapy / Q000379:methods; D005973:Glutamine / Q000008:administration & dosage; D006801:Humans; D007902:Length of Stay; D044342:Malnutrition / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control*; D010288:Parenteral Nutrition; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
D005973:Glutamine