PubMed1994
OBJECTIVE: In a randomized, double-blind, prospective clinical trial, we evaluated the metabolic effects of glutamine-supplemented parenteral nutrition in patients with bone marrow transplants. We compared hospital charge and cost data for the two groups of patients in the trial. DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Bone Marrow Transplant Unit, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Mass. SUBJECTS: Forty-three patients admitted to the Bone Marrow Transplant Unit were assigned randomly to receive either standard parenteral nutrition or an isocaloric, isonitrogenous parenteral nutrition solution containing glutamine starting on day 1 after bone marrow transplant. The two groups were well matched for diagnosis, antineoplastic treatment, and sex. MEASURES: The primary clinical end points evaluated were nitrogen balance, length of hospitalization, incidence of infection, and results of microbial culture. After completion of the study, we compared the hospital charges for the categories of room and board, surgery, laboratory, pharmacy, radiology, ancillary, and miscellaneous between the two groups of patients. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS PERFORMED: The two groups were compared using the unpaired t test or Mann-Whitney test for nonparametric measurements. A P value of < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Nitrogen balance improved in the glutamine-supplemented group compared with control subjects (-1.4 +/- 0.5 g/day vs 4.2 +/- 1.2 g/day, respectively; P = .002). Length of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the glutamine-supplemented group than in the control group (29 +/- 1 day vs 36 +/- 2 days, respectively; P = .017). The incidence of positive microbial cultures and clinical infection was also significantly lower with glutamine supplementation. Hospital charges were $21,095 per patient less in the glutamine-supplemented group compared with charges for patients who received standard therapy. Room and board charges were significantly different: $51,484 +/- 2,647 for the glutamine-supplemented group vs $61,591 +/- 3,588 in the control group (P = .02). CONCLUSION: This intervention study using a new therapy demonstrated clinical and nutritional benefits to patients and cost savings to the hospital.