ArticlePrzeglad gastroenterologiczny2016
Medium-chain triglycerides/long-chain triglycerides versus long-chain triglycerides in treatment of cancer patients with major body mass loss. Survival in patients with refractory cachexia.
Article in Przeglad gastroenterologiczny, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCurrently there are no established guidelines regarding the use of long-chain triglycerides (LCT) vs. medium-chain triglycerides medium-chain triglycerides (MCT)/long-chain triglycerides (LCT) in total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Severe malnutrition of patients with refractory cachexia (RC) often causes their disqualification from invasive methods of treatment thus decreasing their quality of life and survival time.
aimTo compare the changes in nutritional state of patients with RC receiving PN with LCT and LCT/MCT lipid emulsions and to assess the influence of enteral nutrition on their survival time. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe study group comprised of 50 patients (23 female, 27 male) with a median age of 66 years. Refractory cachexia was diagnosed in them due to dysphagia secondary to solid tumours causing obstruction of the gastrointestinal tract (GT). All patients were qualified for surgical gastrostomy due to contraindications to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. The patients were randomly assigned into one of two groups and perioperatively received either LCT or LCT/MCT. Blood samples were collected four times and tested for: total protein, albumin, prealbumin, and C-reactive protein concentration. Patients received Home Enteral Nutrition after discharge from hospital.
resultsChanges in nutritional status parameters were similar among patients receiving lipid emulsions LCT vs. MCT/LCT in TPN for 11 days. The mean survival time of all patients operated to gain enteral access to nutrition was 192 ±268 days, and the median survival was 98 days.
conclusionsRegarding the short-term TPN, the results of the study do not demonstrate any superiority of MCT/LCT lipid emulsions over LCT, or vice versa. The inability to eat significantly accelerates unintended body mass loss among patients with RC. Disqualification from invasive treatment options deprives some patients of the benefits they might have obtained from the surgical access to GT and enteral nutrition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.