| Title |
Comparative effectiveness of elemental formula in the early enteral nutrition management of acute pancreatitis: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-018-0414-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Akira Endo, Atsushi Shiraishi, Kiyohide Fushimi, Kiyoshi Murata, Yasuhiro Otomo |
| Abstract |
Although enteral nutrition has become one of the standard therapies for patients with acute pancreatitis, the optimal formulae for enteral nutrition have been under debate. Elemental formula is assumed to be suitable in the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis because it has less stimulating effects for exocrine secretions of the pancreas, simultaneously maintaining gut immunity; however, clinical studies corroborating this assumption have been scarce. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a Japanese national administrative database between 2010 and 2015. Patients with acute pancreatitis who received enteral feeding within 3 days of admission were identified and divided into two groups according to whether elemental formula was administered. We assessed the impact of elemental formula for the outcomes (primary, in-hospital mortality; secondary, development of sepsis, hospital-free days at 90 days, and total health-care costs) using a multivariate mixed-effect regression analysis and propensity score matching analysis adjusted by a well-validated case-mix adjustment model. Analysis for the subpopulation of patients with severe acute pancreatitis was also performed. Of 243,312 patients with acute pancreatitis, 948 patients were identified and classified into the elemental formula group (N = 382) and the control group (N = 566). No significant differences were observed for in-hospital mortality [10.2% in the elemental formula group vs. 11.0% in the control group; adjusted adds ratio (95% confidence interval; CI) = 0.94 (0.53-1.67)], sepsis development [5.0 vs. 7.1%; adjusted adds ratio (95% CI) = 0.66 (0.34-1.28)], mean hospital-free days [54 days vs. 51 days; adjusted difference (95% CI) = 2 days (- 2 to 5)], and mean total health-care costs [$29,360 vs. $34,214; adjusted difference (95% CI) = - $4250 (- 8643 to 141)]. Similar results were also observed in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. The results of our retrospective cohort study using a large-scale national database did not demonstrate the benefit of elemental formula compared to semi-elemental and polymeric formulae in patients with acute pancreatitis. Further assessment of alternative nutritional strategy is expected. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nicaragua | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 64 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Unknown | 28 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 30 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 July 2018.
All research outputs
#15,538,060
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#836
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,808
of 329,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#19
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.9. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.