• Enteral Nutrition versus Total Parenteral Nutrition for Acute Pancreatitis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

      Armstrong, Edward P.; Erstad, Brian L.; Waara, James H.; College of Pharmacy, The University of Arizona (The University of Arizona., 2005)
      Objectives: To develop a decision analytic model to compare the clinical and economic outcomes of enteral nutrition (EN) and total parenteral nutritional (TPN) support in acute pancreatitis patients. Methods: All randomized clinical trials comparing EN and TPN in acute pancreatitis patients published in the medical and pharmacy literature were identified. Six trials were identified by searching MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, HealthStar, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature, and citation review of applicable literature. The costs used for the decision tree were from the perspective of a hospital. A literature based decision tree was formed based from these costs and the probabilities of events from the six identified clinical trials. The TreeAge Pro computer program (TreeAge Software, Inc.; Williamstown, MA) was used to conduct the cost effectiveness analysis. Therapeutic success was considered, for the purposes of the trial, as having no complications. Results: EN was associated with a lower risk of infections, a reduced length of hospital stay, and fewer surgical interventions. There was no statistical difference in the risk of mortality, adult respiratory distress syndrome or multiple organ failure between groups treated with EN or TPN. The results found that EN dominated TPN by being both less costly and more effective. The average costs for EN and TPN were $46,345 and $73,878, respectively. The success rates were 0.652 and 0.358 for EN and TPN, respectively. Conclusion: Enteral nutrition was the dominant route of administration for nutritional support, when compared to total parenteral nutrition both clinically and economically for acute pancreatitis patients.