Health Outcomes and Quality of Life Indices of Children Receiving Blenderized Feeds via Enteral Tube.
Abdominal Pain
/ epidemiology
Boston
/ epidemiology
Child
Child, Preschool
Cohort Studies
Diarrhea
/ epidemiology
Emergency Service, Hospital
/ statistics & numerical data
Enteral Nutrition
Female
Food, Formulated
Humans
Male
Nausea
/ epidemiology
Patient Admission
/ statistics & numerical data
Patient Satisfaction
Quality of Life
Vomiting
/ epidemiology
blenderized diets
enteral tube feeds
healthcare use
quality of life
Journal
The Journal of pediatrics
ISSN: 1097-6833
Titre abrégé: J Pediatr
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0375410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2019
08 2019
Historique:
received:
22
01
2019
revised:
14
03
2019
accepted:
10
04
2019
pubmed:
28
5
2019
medline:
14
4
2020
entrez:
27
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine whether clinical and patient-reported outcomes differ in children receiving blenderized diets compared with conventional formula. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 70 children aged 1-18 years receiving blenderized diets vs conventional formula via feeding tube. We assessed rates of hospitalization and visits to the emergency department (ED) at Boston Children's Hospital in 2017 and Likert scale addressing satisfaction with feeding regimen; Pediatric Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom and Quality of Life Questionnaire; Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory; and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scale. Participants receiving blenderized diets (n = 42, 60%) did not differ in demographics or comorbid diagnoses from those receiving conventional formula (n = 28, 40%). Rates of total visits to the ED (0.8 ± 1.5 vs 1.4 ± 2.7, P = .05), total admissions (0.8 ± 1.2 vs 1.7 ± 2.3, P = .01), and respiratory-related admissions (0.2 ± 0.5 vs 0.6 ± 0.8, P = .04) per year were significantly lower in participants receiving blenderized diets, and respiratory-related visits to the ED trended toward significance (0.1 ± 0.4 vs 0.4 ± 0.8, P = .08). Compared with those receiving conventional formula, participants on blenderized diets reported greater satisfaction ratings (Likert scale 4.3 ± 1.0 vs 3.3 ± 1.2, P = .001), lower symptom (0.7 ± 0.8 vs 1.2 ± 1.1, P = .03), and total (0.8 ± 0.8 vs 1.2 ± 1.0, P = .02) scores on Pediatric Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptom and Quality of Life Questionnaire and greater scores on the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Gastrointestinal Symptoms Scale, indicating less nausea and vomiting (64.0 ± 22.6 vs 49.0 ± 37.9, P = .02), abdominal pain (65.0 ± 26.8 vs 56.4 ± 33.9, P = .04), diarrhea (87.9 ± 15.5 vs 73.6 ± 26.3, P = .004), and fewer total symptoms (70.2 ± 16.3 vs 62.3 ± 19.6, P = .03). Blenderized diets are associated with decreased healthcare use, improved symptom scores, and increased patient satisfaction compared with conventional formulas.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31128885
pii: S0022-3476(19)30443-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2019.04.023
pmc: PMC6660979
mid: NIHMS1526983
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
139-145.e1Subventions
Organisme : NIDDK NIH HHS
ID : R01 DK097112
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Dev Med Child Neurol. 1999 May;41(5):329-34
pubmed: 10378759
Respirology. 2001 Mar;6(1):43-50
pubmed: 11264762
J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Mar;101(3):294-301
pubmed: 11269606
Arch Dis Child. 2003 Jan;88(1):75-8
pubmed: 12495971
Pediatrics. 2003 Apr;111(4 Pt 1):e355-9
pubmed: 12671151
Gerontology. 2004 Nov-Dec;50(6):417-9
pubmed: 15477704
Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(4):385-91
pubmed: 15563445
Nature. 2009 Jan 22;457(7228):480-4
pubmed: 19043404
Diabetes Educ. 2009 Jul-Aug;35(4):631-40
pubmed: 19448045
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009 Sep-Oct;33(5):513-9
pubmed: 19487579
Pediatrics. 2010 Oct;126(4):647-55
pubmed: 20855394
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2011 Feb;52(2):129-39
pubmed: 21240010
J Pediatr. 2011 Aug;159(2):284-90
pubmed: 21429511
Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011 May;22(3):283-9
pubmed: 21457335
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2011 May;35(3):375-9
pubmed: 21527599
J Clin Biochem Nutr. 2011 May;48(3):226-9
pubmed: 21562643
Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Sep;96(3):534-43
pubmed: 22854412
Pediatrics. 2012 Dec;130(6):e1463-70
pubmed: 23184117
JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Feb;167(2):170-7
pubmed: 23266509
Nature. 2013 Aug 29;500(7464):541-6
pubmed: 23985870
Nat Med. 2014 Feb;20(2):159-66
pubmed: 24390308
Nutr Res. 2014 Apr;34(4):277-84
pubmed: 24774063
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Dec;33(12):2199-206
pubmed: 25489039
Nature. 2015 Mar 5;519(7541):92-6
pubmed: 25731162
Nutr Clin Pract. 2015 Dec;30(6):824-9
pubmed: 26150105
Eur Respir J. 2016 Jan;47(1):122-32
pubmed: 26493792
Crit Care. 2015 Nov 09;19:390
pubmed: 26549276
Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2016 May 31;30:380
pubmed: 27493924
Nutr Clin Pract. 2017 Apr;32(2):201-205
pubmed: 27589257
Nat Med. 2016 Oct;22(10):1187-1191
pubmed: 27618652
Clin Nutr. 2018 Feb;37(1):177-181
pubmed: 28003040
Nutrients. 2017 Jan 10;9(1):null
pubmed: 28075383
Clin Transl Immunology. 2017 Mar 10;6(3):e133
pubmed: 28435675
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2018 Aug;42(6):1046-1060
pubmed: 29338077