• Lorenzo Pradelli, Séverine Graf, Claude Pichard, and Mette M Berger.
• AdRes Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Via Vittorio Alfieri, 17, 10121 Turin, Italy. Electronic address: l.pradelli@adreshe.com.
• Clin Nutr. 2018 Apr 1; 37 (2): 573-579.

Background & AimsThe Swiss supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) study demonstrated that optimised energy provision combining enteral nutrition (EN) and SPN reduces nosocomial infections in critically ill adults who fail to achieve targeted energy delivery with EN alone. To assess the economic impact of this strategy, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the SPN study.MethodsMultivariable regression analyses were performed to characterise the relationships between SPN, cumulative energy deficit, nosocomial infection, and resource consumption. The results were used as inputs for a deterministic simulation model evaluating the cost-effectiveness of SPN administered on days 4-8 in patients who fail to achieve ≥60% of targeted energy delivery with EN by day 3. Cost data were derived primarily from Swiss diagnosis-related case costs and official labour statistics.ResultsProvision of SPN on days 4-8 was associated with a mean decrease of 2320 ± 338 kcal in cumulative energy deficit compared with EN alone (p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis showed that each 1000 kcal decrease in cumulative energy deficit was associated with a 10% reduction in the risk of nosocomial infection (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.99; p < 0.05). The incremental cost per avoided infection was -63,048 CHF, indicating that the reduction in infection was achieved at a lower cost.ConclusionOptimisation of energy provision using SPN is a cost-saving strategy in critically ill adults for whom EN is insufficient to meet energy requirements.Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

28 keywords...

hide…