Talk:Parenteral nutrition

Untitled

I added the external link to the NIH MedlinePlus database which has authoritative information on the drugs used for TPN.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christinewmin, Mlomanto, Kshim054, DanielPerez144. Peer reviewers: Storm1625.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
TPN is a more common term, but just parenteral nutrition is probably more accurate term (as PN's sometimes used as a supplement). Does anyone else think this page should be moved? Tristanb 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree--parenteral nutrition is the preferred term now as per the American Society for Parenteral Nutrition. See A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors, et al. Definition of Terms, Style, and Conventions Used in A.S.P.E.N. Guidelines and Standards. Nutrition in Clinical Practice 2005;20:281-285 (April 2005 issue). Table 5 on page 285 states that TPN is an unacceptable abbreviation as it is unclear if it means total nutrients or totally by parenteral nutrition. Sirky (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Added move template as per Wikipedia:Requested moves. The term PN is increasingly being used in the UK over last few years, as TPN incorrectly suggests that it provides complete nutritional support. Often enteral or extra fluids (or a mix of both) will be used with PN, especially when weening off the PN onto normal gut feeding. Just because TPN is the more common term, does not make it the right term to use. Even with a change, appropriate redirections will mean ppl linking or searching for TPN will find the desired information.

If the article is moved, I will make sure all redirections are fixed, and that the article is altered to reflect fact that title is PN not TPN. Cheers Lethaniol 21:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support; the article should mention TPN but the scope and hence the page name should be parenteral nutrition. --Una Smith (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Effects on sensations related to digestion

Purely out of curiousity: does TPN mitigate feelings of hunger in patients to whom it is administered, or does the alimentary tract get left out of the loop and continue to complain about the lack of food? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.211.248.152 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, TPN increases satiety and decreases hunger (http://www.ssat.com/cgi-bin/abstracts/98ddw/abstscorrt-156.cgi). One theory is that it increases leptin production (http://pen.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/1/38)Jasonbholden (talk) 23:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As a patient on long term TPN myself who gets no supplemental nutrition (no oral or enteral feeds) I would say the answer to this is not a direct yes at all. I have never found it stopped hunger and many patients struggle a great deal if required to be NPO while in TPN. Not enough research has been done in this field frankly and I'm surprised there's research that claims it does decrease hunger. And as far as satiety, when there's no actual food in any part of one's GI tract, particularly if one has eaten orally for part of their life, you do not feel full on TPN. Many struggle with acid reflux and acid burning and irritating their stomachs because there's no food to sop up the acid but the gut continues to produce it anyway. So the body itself does not act as if it's being fed. From what I've seen talking to many others on TPN the hunger response is variable and this is a much more complex issue than something that can be clearly answered yes or no. --TzipiTzipora (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed a mess of text

TPN stands for Total Parenteral Nutrition. This is a complete form of nutrition, containing protien, sugar, fat, and added vitamins and minerals as needed for each individual. It is admininstered through an intavenous infusion, usually using a central line. A central line is a special long lasting IV line that goes through a vein directly to the heart. It is usually placed on the chest, though sometimes if the location must be changed frequently it will be placed in other areas such as the groin or the neck.

TPN is a lifesaver for people who are unable to absorb adequate nutrition through their intestines. This can happen for a variety of reasons, Short Bowel Syndrome (SBS), Chronic Intestinal Pseudo-obstruction (CIPS), Eosinophilic Gastroentiritis (EG), Hirshprungs Disease (HD) and various other diseases or disorders. Motility problems that lead to TPN usage can be very difficult to diagnose. Sometimes it takes many difficult or painful tests and procedures to come up with a diagnosis, and the diagnosis itself can mean more unexplained health problems.

TPN is administered for varying hours on a daily or sometimes several times a week basis. Sean receives his TPN while asleep, so as to preserve his daytime hours with as much normalcy as possible. At one time he had to receive it 18-20 hours per day, so to have him "hooked up" for only 10 1/2 hours is much more pleasant for the whole family. Some people do have to receive the TPN for up to 24 hours per day, the amount of time varies depending on the needs of the person combined with the adaptability of the body to the fluid going through, in particular the sugars

A random IP inserted the above into the header for the article. Some of it is kind of useful, but most of it is personal and not conforming to encyclopedic standards. Anyways, I am going to delete it, but I thought I'd leave it on the talk page in case anyone sees a better place to incorporate it. Azoreg (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this be removed?

Just passing through, working on a loosely related project, I began browsing the article and came across this, under the＂ｄｕｒａｔｉｏｎ＂　ｓｅｃｔｉｏｎ：　

＂A non-profit organization, the Oley Foundation, provides free information and programs to better the quality of life for PN and tube fed patients.＂

This sentence doesn't seem to have any place in an encyclopedic document. Something more general like: "certain organizations provide assistance to long term PN users" (or something better written) might be better. Here, there is absolutely on need to mention a specific organization by name. While this would still border on superfluous, as it is, the present content is little more than a thinly veiled advertisement, and probably goes against some Wiki rule or other. 202.120.5.161 (talk) 07:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I just removed it. You're right. What's more, extremely nebulous nature of the phrase, "chronic PN patients hope to live quite normal lives", just strikes me as advert language. Doesn't it go without saying that PN patients would want to or hope to live normal lives (however we define that)? The implied meaning is that chronic PN patients can hope to live a normal life, and that the "community resources" provide a means to do that. As noble as that might be, it's advertisement. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Use in cancer-can someone expand?

I don't see any citations for this section and I'm not knowledgeable enough to respond. Thanks. Seadark (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Article photo

Can we get a different photo for this article? Not to nitpick but I've never seen a PN bag that looked remotely like the one pictured here. Yes there are variations in how PN bags look but this is not representative of the appearance of the bags patients on home PN receive or for that matter any I've seen in the hospital at least here in the US where TPN is most widely used. Generally its a clear bag with the fluids mixed together with or without lipids (lipids are white, the dextrose and amino acid mix is a clear yellow) and in some cases the lipids are split. I believe, though I'm not sure, the picture in current use may be a very dated photo of TPN and things have changed since.

I'm just thinking if a patient or patients family member comes on Wikipedia searching for PN they may be confused why the bag they're receiving looks nothing at all like the one photographed. But I'm a newbie to the editing side of Wikipedia and don't know how we go about acquiring a new photo that is not copyrighted. I could upload one myself of my own photographs perhaps?

--TzipiTzipora (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 5a goals

Add a section about special populations who need parenteral nutrition, specifically the geriatric population, and the reasons why. (malnutrition, importance of adequate nutrition, response to PN, comorbidities/complications) Expand on the use of PN in cancer patients (no citation was added before) Add information on the medications used in PN. Christinewmin (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Christinewmin (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 5c peer review

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? Added section on geriatric population; added section on use in cancer pts; expanded on catheter complications; added section on medications. Additions add important and relevant information. Edits are easy to read and understand, but not always in lay language.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? The group’s main contribution to the article was in their addition of a geriatric and cancer subsection under “Medical Uses.” Though they touched upon the fact that “physical, physiological and mental differences” can account for the need for nutritional therapy, further elaboration on this statement would have better supported their goal to explain why this population is especially susceptible to malnutrition.

3. Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... While most of the statements added by the group are supported by recent treatment guidelines from ESPEN, there is no citation for the statement regarding catheterization complications (under the infection subheading). Vicknguy (talk) 16:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

4. Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify... The edits appear relatively consistent with the manual style as they maintain the same voice, punctuation, and factual tone. However, the ease of understanding doesn't use layman’s terms (e.g. contraindicated), however I think it might be acceptable given the topic itself. One possible suggestion would be changing "weights" to "weight measurements." Snselim (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

6. Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify... There is no evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Citations are relevant and appropriate. Last sentence of Infection sub-heading is not cited. Storm1625 (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

7. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

The draft reflects a neutral point of view. There are no biased phrases. The articles don’t make claims on behalf of a group of people. The writing is not trying to convince readers to think one way or another, only facts are given. Msleee (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Storm1625 (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)