Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorArmstrong, Edward P.en
dc.contributor.advisorErstad, Brian L.en
dc.contributor.authorWaara, James H.
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-18T18:08:07Z
dc.date.available2017-07-18T18:08:07Z
dc.date.issued2005
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/624775
dc.descriptionClass of 2005 Abstracten
dc.description.abstractObjectives: 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.
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author.en
dc.subjectEnteral Nutritionen
dc.subjectTotal Parenteral Nutritionen
dc.subjectAcute Pancreatitisen
dc.subjectCost-Effectivenessen
dc.subject.meshPancreatitisen
dc.subject.meshEnteral Nutritionen
dc.subject.meshParenteral Nutrition, Totalen
dc.subject.meshCost-Benefit Analysisen
dc.titleEnteral Nutrition versus Total Parenteral Nutrition for Acute Pancreatitis: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysisen_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Reporten
dc.contributor.departmentCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizonaen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu.en
html.description.abstractObjectives: 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.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record