Quality of life in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition

P B Jeppesen; E Langholz; P B Mortensen

doi:10.1136/gut.44.6.844

Quality of life in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition

160 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Quality of life is an important determinant of the effectiveness of health technologies, but it has rarely been assessed in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN).

PATIENTS/METHODS: The non-disease specific sickness impact profile (SIP) and the disease specific inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ) were used on a cohort of 49 patients receiving HPN, and the results compared with those for 36 non-HPN patients with either anatomical (<200 cm) or functional (faecal energy excretion >2.0 MJ/day (approximately 488 kcal/day)) short bowel.

RESULTS: In the HPN patients the SIP scores were worse (higher) overall (17 (13)% v 8 (9)%) and with regard to physical (13 (15)% v 5 (8)%) and psychosocial (14 (12)% v 9 (11)%) dimensions and independent categories (20 (12)% v 9 (8)%) compared with the non-HPN patients (means (SD); all p<0.001). The IBDQ scores were worse (lower) in the HPN patients overall (5.0 (4.3-5.7) v 5.6 (4.8-6.2)) and with regard to systemic symptoms (3.8 (2.8-5.4) v 5.2 (3.9-5.9)) and emotional (5.3 (4.4-6.2) v 5.8 (5.4-6.4)) and social (4.3 (3.4-5. 5) v 4.8 (4.5-5.8)) function (median (25-75%); all p<0.05), but only tended to be worse with regard to bowel symptoms (5.2 (4.8-6.1) v 5.7 (4.9-6.4), p = 0.08). HPN also reduced quality of life in patients with a stoma, whereas a stoma did not reduce quality of life among the non-HPN patients. Female HPN patients and HPN patients older than 45 scored worse.

CONCLUSION: Quality of life is reduced in patients on HPN compared with those with anatomical or functional short bowel not receiving HPN, and compares with that reported for patients with chronic renal failure treated by dialysis.

Original language	English
Journal	Gut
Volume	44
Issue number	6
Pages (from-to)	844-52
Number of pages	9
ISSN	0017-5749
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.44.6.844
Publication status	Published - Jun 1999

Keywords

Adult
Age Factors
Anastomosis, Surgical
Chronic Disease
Cohort Studies
Female
Humans
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/psychology
Male
Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/psychology
Middle Aged
Parenteral Nutrition, Home Total
Psychosocial Deprivation
Quality of Life
Sex Factors
Sickness Impact Profile
Statistics, Nonparametric

Access to Document

10.1136/gut.44.6.844

Cite this

@article{3d44ed84fdc44e9bbe037a1b2253c9e1,

title = "Quality of life in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition",

abstract = "BACKGROUND/AIMS: Quality of life is an important determinant of the effectiveness of health technologies, but it has rarely been assessed in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN).PATIENTS/METHODS: The non-disease specific sickness impact profile (SIP) and the disease specific inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ) were used on a cohort of 49 patients receiving HPN, and the results compared with those for 36 non-HPN patients with either anatomical (<200 cm) or functional (faecal energy excretion >2.0 MJ/day (approximately 488 kcal/day)) short bowel.RESULTS: In the HPN patients the SIP scores were worse (higher) overall (17 (13)% v 8 (9)%) and with regard to physical (13 (15)% v 5 (8)%) and psychosocial (14 (12)% v 9 (11)%) dimensions and independent categories (20 (12)% v 9 (8)%) compared with the non-HPN patients (means (SD); all p<0.001). The IBDQ scores were worse (lower) in the HPN patients overall (5.0 (4.3-5.7) v 5.6 (4.8-6.2)) and with regard to systemic symptoms (3.8 (2.8-5.4) v 5.2 (3.9-5.9)) and emotional (5.3 (4.4-6.2) v 5.8 (5.4-6.4)) and social (4.3 (3.4-5. 5) v 4.8 (4.5-5.8)) function (median (25-75%); all p<0.05), but only tended to be worse with regard to bowel symptoms (5.2 (4.8-6.1) v 5.7 (4.9-6.4), p = 0.08). HPN also reduced quality of life in patients with a stoma, whereas a stoma did not reduce quality of life among the non-HPN patients. Female HPN patients and HPN patients older than 45 scored worse.CONCLUSION: Quality of life is reduced in patients on HPN compared with those with anatomical or functional short bowel not receiving HPN, and compares with that reported for patients with chronic renal failure treated by dialysis.",

keywords = "Adult, Age Factors, Anastomosis, Surgical, Chronic Disease, Cohort Studies, Female, Humans, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/psychology, Male, Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/psychology, Middle Aged, Parenteral Nutrition, Home Total, Psychosocial Deprivation, Quality of Life, Sex Factors, Sickness Impact Profile, Statistics, Nonparametric",

author = "Jeppesen, {P B} and E Langholz and Mortensen, {P B}",

year = "1999",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1136/gut.44.6.844",

language = "English",

volume = "44",

pages = "844--52",

journal = "Gut",

issn = "0017-5749",

publisher = "B M J Group",

number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of life in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition

AU - Jeppesen, P B

AU - Langholz, E

AU - Mortensen, P B

PY - 1999/6

Y1 - 1999/6

N2 - BACKGROUND/AIMS: Quality of life is an important determinant of the effectiveness of health technologies, but it has rarely been assessed in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN).PATIENTS/METHODS: The non-disease specific sickness impact profile (SIP) and the disease specific inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ) were used on a cohort of 49 patients receiving HPN, and the results compared with those for 36 non-HPN patients with either anatomical (<200 cm) or functional (faecal energy excretion >2.0 MJ/day (approximately 488 kcal/day)) short bowel.RESULTS: In the HPN patients the SIP scores were worse (higher) overall (17 (13)% v 8 (9)%) and with regard to physical (13 (15)% v 5 (8)%) and psychosocial (14 (12)% v 9 (11)%) dimensions and independent categories (20 (12)% v 9 (8)%) compared with the non-HPN patients (means (SD); all p<0.001). The IBDQ scores were worse (lower) in the HPN patients overall (5.0 (4.3-5.7) v 5.6 (4.8-6.2)) and with regard to systemic symptoms (3.8 (2.8-5.4) v 5.2 (3.9-5.9)) and emotional (5.3 (4.4-6.2) v 5.8 (5.4-6.4)) and social (4.3 (3.4-5. 5) v 4.8 (4.5-5.8)) function (median (25-75%); all p<0.05), but only tended to be worse with regard to bowel symptoms (5.2 (4.8-6.1) v 5.7 (4.9-6.4), p = 0.08). HPN also reduced quality of life in patients with a stoma, whereas a stoma did not reduce quality of life among the non-HPN patients. Female HPN patients and HPN patients older than 45 scored worse.CONCLUSION: Quality of life is reduced in patients on HPN compared with those with anatomical or functional short bowel not receiving HPN, and compares with that reported for patients with chronic renal failure treated by dialysis.

AB - BACKGROUND/AIMS: Quality of life is an important determinant of the effectiveness of health technologies, but it has rarely been assessed in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition (HPN).PATIENTS/METHODS: The non-disease specific sickness impact profile (SIP) and the disease specific inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (IBDQ) were used on a cohort of 49 patients receiving HPN, and the results compared with those for 36 non-HPN patients with either anatomical (<200 cm) or functional (faecal energy excretion >2.0 MJ/day (approximately 488 kcal/day)) short bowel.RESULTS: In the HPN patients the SIP scores were worse (higher) overall (17 (13)% v 8 (9)%) and with regard to physical (13 (15)% v 5 (8)%) and psychosocial (14 (12)% v 9 (11)%) dimensions and independent categories (20 (12)% v 9 (8)%) compared with the non-HPN patients (means (SD); all p<0.001). The IBDQ scores were worse (lower) in the HPN patients overall (5.0 (4.3-5.7) v 5.6 (4.8-6.2)) and with regard to systemic symptoms (3.8 (2.8-5.4) v 5.2 (3.9-5.9)) and emotional (5.3 (4.4-6.2) v 5.8 (5.4-6.4)) and social (4.3 (3.4-5. 5) v 4.8 (4.5-5.8)) function (median (25-75%); all p<0.05), but only tended to be worse with regard to bowel symptoms (5.2 (4.8-6.1) v 5.7 (4.9-6.4), p = 0.08). HPN also reduced quality of life in patients with a stoma, whereas a stoma did not reduce quality of life among the non-HPN patients. Female HPN patients and HPN patients older than 45 scored worse.CONCLUSION: Quality of life is reduced in patients on HPN compared with those with anatomical or functional short bowel not receiving HPN, and compares with that reported for patients with chronic renal failure treated by dialysis.

KW - Adult

KW - Age Factors

KW - Anastomosis, Surgical

KW - Chronic Disease

KW - Cohort Studies

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/psychology

KW - Male

KW - Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/psychology

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Parenteral Nutrition, Home Total

KW - Psychosocial Deprivation

KW - Quality of Life

KW - Sex Factors

KW - Sickness Impact Profile

KW - Statistics, Nonparametric

U2 - 10.1136/gut.44.6.844

DO - 10.1136/gut.44.6.844

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 10323888

SN - 0017-5749

VL - 44

SP - 844

EP - 852

JO - Gut

JF - Gut

IS - 6

ER -

Quality of life in patients receiving home parenteral nutrition

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this