Prevalence of diabetes mellitus in patients with home enteral nutrition

Jose Abuín-Fernández; Viyey Doulatram-Gamgaram; Francisco Sánchez-Torralvo; Victoria Contreras-Bolívar; Susana Padín; Montserrat Gonzalo-Marín; Gabriel Olveira

doi:10.1016/j.endinu.2019.11.001

Prevalence of diabetes mellitus in patients with home enteral nutrition

Endocrinol Diabetes Nutr (Engl Ed). 2020 Dec;67(10):650-657. doi: 10.1016/j.endinu.2019.11.001. Epub 2020 Jan 6.

[Article in English, Spanish]

Authors

Jose Abuín-Fernández¹, Viyey Doulatram-Gamgaram¹, Francisco Sánchez-Torralvo¹, Victoria Contreras-Bolívar¹, Susana Padín¹, Montserrat Gonzalo-Marín¹, Gabriel Olveira²

Affiliations

¹ Clinical Management Unit of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga-Universidad de Málaga, Instituto de investigación Biomédica de Málaga (IBIMA), Spain.
² Clinical Management Unit of Endocrinology and Nutrition, Hospital Regional Universitario de Málaga-Universidad de Málaga, Instituto de investigación Biomédica de Málaga (IBIMA), Spain; CIBERDEM (CB07/08/0019), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: gabrielm.olveira.sspa@juntadeandalucia.es.

PMID: 31917132
DOI: 10.1016/j.endinu.2019.11.001

Abstract

Background: There are few data available in the literature on the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with home enteral nutrition (HEN) via tube feeding. The objective was to analyze the prevalence of DM in patients receiving HEN, as well as evaluating the complications, the prescribed antidiabetic treatments and the nutrition regimen selected.

Design: This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study reviewing clinical histories. The population consisted of patients over 18 years of age who started HEN by tube between January 2016 and January 2018. Sociodemographic variables were recorded, as well as variables related to HEN. Additional variables were recorded in patients with DM.

Results: In the 198 study patients, followed up for a median of 104 days, the prevalence of DM was 31.8%, and patients with DM were older (71.3±11.5 vs. 64.2±15.8; p=0.002) than those without DM. There were no differences between patients with and without DM as regards the prescription of HEN, its route and form of administration, and its complications. One hundred and thirty-two patients (66.7%) died during follow-up. The presence of DM did not increase the risk of death during follow-up (after adjusting for age, gender, and diagnosis). More than 85% of patients with DM received a specific formula for diabetes, and 84.1% of these patients received drug treatment.

Conclusion: The prevalence of DM was high in patients receiving HEN, most of whom were prescribed specific enteral nutrition formulas. The presence of DM was not associated with greater morbidity and mortality or with differences in HEN regimens or indications.

Keywords: Antidiabéticos orales; Body mass index; Diabetes mellitus; Enteral nutrition; Gastrostomía endoscópica percutánea; Home enteral nutrition; Nutrición enteral; Nutrición enteral domiciliaria; Oral antidiabetics; Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy; Índice de masa corporal.