Enteral nutrition (EN) has almost completely replaced parenteral nutrition (PN) in burn patients.*
EN is safe, cost effective, and has many clinical advantages over PN for delivering vital nutrition to severely burned patients.*
* Clark, A., Imran, J., Madni, T., Wolf, S. Nutrition and metabolism in burn patients. Burns & Trauma. 2017. 5:11
13.4% of patients who were diagnosed as malnourished received either parenteral or enteral nutrition during their hospital stay.[1]
Enteral nutrition is preferred over parenteral nutrition because it is cheaper and has a lower risk of complications (especially infection).[2]
1. Corkins, M., Guenter, P., DiMario-Ghalili, R., Jensen, G., Malone, A., Miller, S., Patel, V., Plogsted, S., Resnick, H. Malnutrition Diagnoses in Hospitalized Patients. Journal of Pareneteral and Enteral Nutrition. 2014; 38(2): 186-195.
2. Hyeda A, Costa ÉSMD. Economic analysis of costs with enteral and parenteral nutritional therapy according to disease and outcome. Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2017;15(2):192–199. doi:10.1590/S1679-45082017GS4002.
Recent Comments