Cited by 59Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyDysphagia Assessment and ManagementNutrition and Health in Aging

Clinical outcome of geriatric patients in the United States receiving home parenteral and enteral nutrition

Open access
Howard, L, Malone, M·1997·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

In this study the use of home parenteral and enteral nutrition (HPEN) therapy in geriatric patients and the effect of aging on the clinical outcome of HPEN therapy was assessed between 1985 and 1992. Data were obtained from Medicare (part B) parenteral and enteral nutrition workload statistics, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Carolina, and the North American HPEN Patient Registry. On the basis of these data it was estimated that in 1992 there were 40,000 HPN patients and 152,000 HEN patients nationwide. One-quarter to one-third of the HPN group was aged > or = 65 y, depending on the underlying diagnosis. Geriatric HPN patients had a generally good outcome but did not do as well as their younger counterparts; however, they had fewer therapy-related complications than children. In the HEN group, 44% of cancer patients and 69% of patients with neuromuscular swallowing disorders were geriatric. Geriatric HEN patients with swallowing disorders had a poorer outcome (i.e., lower survival, poorer rehabilitation, and fewer resumed full oral nutrition) than younger patients after 1 y of follow-up. In conclusion, although aging was associated with a poorer outcome for HPN patients, it was still reasonably good; therefore, age per se should not exclude geriatric subjects from therapy. For HEN, the poorer outcome in geriatric dysphagic patients raises concern regarding the appropriateness of this therapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ajcn/66.6.1364

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several studies have documented that parenteral nutrition is a feasible and successful method of nutritional support also in older people, not only in the hospital but also at home.

    “Several studies have documented that PN is a feasible and successful method of nutritional support also in older people (130,(178)(179)(180), not only in the hospital but also at home (181).”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 10 · Cited by 59

Authors
Howard, L., & Malone, M.
Affiliations
Albany Medical College (US)
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-12
Volume
66
Issue
6
Pages
1364-1370
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1783133893
Cited by
59
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Nutrition and Health in Aging
Keywords
home parenteral nutrition, home enteral nutrition, elderly patients, aging, clinical outcomes, dysphagia, cancer patients, neuromuscular disorders, survival, rehabilitation, Medicare
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Child, Child, Preschool, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Registries, United States, Geriatric Assessment, Prevalence, Survival Rate, Parenteral Nutrition, Home, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review