Next Article in Journal
Efficacy and Safety of Enteral Human Recombinant Insulin to Reduce the Time to Full Enteral Feeding in Preterm Infants: A Meta-Analytical Study
Previous Article in Journal
Investigating Non-Pharmacological Stress Reduction Interventions in Pediatric Patients Confirmed with Salivary Cortisol Levels: A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pediatric Reports
Volume 15
Issue 2
10.3390/pediatric15020032
pediatrrep-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Negative Outcomes Associated with Medication in Neonates on Parenteral Nutrition Therapy

by
Evelin Nataly Vega Díaz
1,
Aida Adriana Miranda Barros
2,
Monica Alexandra Castelo Reyna
3,
Dennys Tenelanda López
4,5 and
Irvin Tubon
6,*
1
Agencia Nacional de Regulación, Control y Vigilancia Sanitaria (ARCSA), Quito 090112, Ecuador
2
Grupo de Investigación de Tecnología y Atención Farmacéutica del Ecuador (GITAFEC), Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo (ESPOCH), Riobamba 060155, Ecuador
3
College of Mechanics, School of Industrial Maitance, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo (ESPOCH), Riobamba 060155, Ecuador
4
School of Dentistry, Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo (UNACH), Riobamba 060110, Ecuador
5
College of Natural Resources, Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo (ESPOCH), Riobamba 060155, Ecuador
6
Carrera de Biotecnología, Facultad de Ciencia e Ingeniería en Alimentos y Biotecnología, Dirección de Investigación y Desarrollo, Ambato 180207, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Pediatr. Rep. 2023, 15(2), 360-372; https://doi.org/10.3390/pediatric15020032
Submission received: 13 February 2023 / Revised: 15 May 2023 / Accepted: 19 May 2023 / Published: 6 June 2023
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objective: In Ecuador, studies on clinical daily practice problems focused on parenteral nutrition in neonates are scarce. Therefore, this research aimed to identify negative results associated with medications (NRAM) in neonates with parenteral nutrition (PN) in a third-level hospital in Ecuador. Material and methods: An observational, prospective, descriptive study was designed in the neonatology area of a tertiary-level public hospital, where, for over four months, the medical records, PN prescriptions, and pharmacy-managed databases of 78 patients were analyzed. Drug-related problems (DRPs) as possible causes of NRAM were classified through administrative, physicochemical, and clinical validation. Results: DRPs classified as follows were found: 78.81% by physicochemical, 17.62% by clinical, and 3.57% by administrative validation. The NRAM were 72% quantitatively uncertain, 16% needed, and 11% quantitatively ineffective. Conclusion: The NRAM associated with DRPs were statistically related to prematurity condition, APGAR score, PN time, and the number of medications administered, which suggests the need to create a nutritional therapy committee at the health facility.

1. Introduction

The negative results associated with the medication (NRAM) are presented as complications in the patient’s health manifested by clinical events or even death. Drug-related problems (DRPs) that cause these complications are those situations that, in the process of drug use, cause or may cause the appearance of a negative result associated with the medication [1,2].
Parenteral nutrition (PN), defined as the administration of macro and micronutrients through the central and/or peripheral route, is an essential therapeutic resource in newborns (NB) and crucial in preterm newborns (PNB) who present high nutritional demands and do not have adequate maturity of organs, systems, and metabolic pathways that allow the assimilation of substances by the enteral route [3,4].
As it is a frequent therapy at the hospital level, complications are common in poly-pathological and poly-medicated patients who are exposed to the accumulation of drugs in the circuits of the different medical devices used in PN, representing a risk of physicochemical incompatibility. Other clinical complications derive from the medical indication that are usually associated with difficulties in caloric adjustment, alterations related to intake, and the requirement of macro and micro molecules [5,6]. The in-line filtration associated with inappropriate multi-lumen systems and the above drawbacks prevents PN from fulfilling the nutritional therapeutic objective [7,8,9,10].
PN is defined as a high-risk medication requiring special management measures. USA reports revealed that only 58% of organizations have procedures focused on preventing errors and harm in patients with PN. There is a general deficit in the processes related to the prescription, validation, composition, preparation, dispensing, and administration of PN. In addition, 23% of the establishments do not have a pharmacist dedicated to the administrative, physicochemical, and clinical validation of PN orders [11,12,13,14].
Therefore, this research aims to show an overview of the main DRPs associated with the clinical practice of PN in neonatology, as well as propose strategies to identify, resolve, and prevent NRAM.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample

A prospective, observational, descriptive study was conducted in the neonatology department of a tertiary public hospital over a four-month period. The study was overseen by a specialist physician responsible for nutritional assessment and the prescription of caloric intake. The pharmacist was responsible for the administrative, physicochemical, and clinical validation of the parenteral nutrition (PN). Finally, the nursing staff administered PN and provided necessary care. Convenience sampling was used to select 78 patients who received PN (total, partial, and cycled) and complementary enteral nutrition (CEN). Patients who did not receive PN or only received enteral nutrition (EN) were excluded.

2.2. Data Collection Tools

General clinical information such as gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW), APGAR score, sex, delivery type, daily review medical records, laboratory test reports and PN prescriptions were recorded using a Microsoft excel database. The study used the parenteral nutrition guidelines AS-PEN/ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN/NICE to analyze caloric-nutritional intake and pathologies associated with therapy. The DADER pharmaco-therapeutic follow-up method was employed as a data collection resource.

2.3. NRAMs Identification

The study identified drug-related problems (DRPs) as causal agents of negative results associated with the medication (NRAM different non-routine adverse events, NRAMs) through three types of validations managed by the pharmacy: administrative, physicochemical, and clinical. Administrative validation involved a qualitative and comprehensive review of the prescription received to ensure the integrity and clarity of patient data, nutritional requirements, and prescriber data. Physicochemical validation focused on calculating the mixture’s composition, stability through analytical relationships, and mixing order. Clinical validation assessed and analyzed the patient’s needs, safety, and effectiveness of pharmacotherapy. The possible NRAMs were classified according to the criteria of necessity, safety, and effectiveness established according to the third consensus of Granada-2007. The study conducted a daily review of medical records, laboratory test reports, PN prescriptions sent to the pharmacy, and databases managed in the service to collect information. In addition, gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW), APGAR score, sex, and delivery type were recorded. Reports on hepatic, renal, hematic, respiratory, electrolytes, gasometric, and metabolic profiles were also analyzed.
The protocol was evaluated and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (CEISH-PUCE), with registration number PV-03-202.2.4.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was performed using R version 4.0.3 (R Core Team, 2020) with the following packages: ggplot2 version 3.3.2 for data visualization and dplyr version 1.0.2 for data manipulation.
General information was detailed using descriptive statistics. The R statistical program estimated the relationship between DRPs and NRAM with Fisher’s exact test (p ˂ 0.05). Finally, the possible statistical association of NRAM with factors specific to the patient was carried out using multivariate statistical significance analysis risk ratio, RR).

3. Results

3.1. Population Characteristics

Information on 78 neonates was recorded (Table 1) with a 51% male and 49% female distribution. The data showed patients admitted with low birth weight (LBW) (40%), very low birth weight (VLBW) (34%), and preterm newborns (PNB) (87%) subclassified as late 44%, moderate 24%, severe 10%, and extreme 9%.
A total of 920 PN prescriptions were received, where “prematurity” predominated as a baseline diagnosis, and 36% of neonates received PN for seven days, 32% up to 14 days, 18% up to 21 days, 13% up to 28 days, and 1% for more than 28 days.
In the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU), multi-pathological poly-medicated patients with complex drug treatment (approximately 11 drugs/day) and patients in intermediate care with an approximate average of 2 drugs/day, and PN only in projected weight gain were found. The mixtures prepared were 3 in 1 (dextrose, lipids, and amino acids in the same PN bag 50%), 2 in 1 + separate lipids (dextrose and amino acids in a PN bag, while lipids were in another 45% infusion line), and 2 in 1 (dextrose and amino acids in a bag of PN 5%). A 22% mortality rate was estimated.

3.2. Drug-Related Problems (DRPs)

The analysis of the 920 prescriptions showed approximately 7.6 DRPs for each prescription (Table 2), classified as 78.81% by physicochemical validation, 17.62% by clinical validation, and 3.57% by administrative validation.

3.3. Types of NRAM

Table 3 shows 61 NRAM classified as 72% due to TYPE VI quantitative insecurity where the patient received a concentration of the nutritional component and/or duration greater than necessary, 16% TYPE I need due to non-administration of the necessary nutritional component, and 11% quantitative ineffectiveness of TYPE IV where the patient received a concentration of the nutritional component less than required.
Fisher’s exact test suggests a statistical association (p < 0.05) of dependence between the DRPs and NRAM: “Necessary phosphorus not available” and “alkaline phosphatase elevation”; “Necessary vitamins not available” and “Lactic acidosis”; “Lipid level > necessary” and “cholestasis”; “Carbohydrate rate > necessary” and “hyperglycemia”. In addition, the results suggest a risk relationship between “Lipid levels > the necessary” and “cholestasis”, RR: 3.2 (95% CI (Confidence interval) 1.720–6.109).
For the parameter “Carbohydrate rate > necessary” and “hyperglycemia”, the relationship is similar RR: 2.8 (95% CI 1.203–6.430).
The multivariate statistical significance analysis (p < 0.05) (Table 4) indicates that the condition of prematurity (PNB) significantly influences (p = 0.031) the NRAM “hyperglycemia”, as well as for the NRAM “cholestasis” (p = 0.029).
On the other hand, the APGAR score influences “lactic acidosis” (p = 0.003) NRAM, as well as the time and number of drugs administered during PN on the “elevation of alkaline phosphatase” with p = 0.037 and p = 0.014, respectively.

4. Discussion

The DRPs found were divided into administrative (3.57%), physicochemical (78.81%), and clinical validation (17.62%). Among the possible causes of NRAMs found by administrative validation, the majority (25.6%) focused on the weight of the NB declared in the evolution sheet (ES), since the orders arrived at the pharmacy with different or inconsistent information. They constitute a source of risk to triggering fluid and electrolyte imbalance and deficit or excess nutrient intake associated with exchanging in training or not providing nutritional therapy [15,16].
On the other hand, due to a lack of familiarity with the input, an error was found in calculating the caloric intake (16.69%) through physicochemical validation. The prescriber took 4 Kcal/g as a bibliographic reference to estimate the volume of glucose infusion (VGI). However, the input available in the unit declares 3.4 Kcal/g, which is a similar situation to the contribution of lipids. Consequently, 81.92% of the mixtures were prepared with a deficit of up to 13.8 Kcal/kg/day and 6.47%, with a deficit of up to 28 Kcal/kg/day [14,17].
Similarly, when the NB progressively tolerated enteral nutrition (EN), the daily concentration of PN components was reduced, decreasing the caloric rate to balance energy intake. However, the record on the evolution sheet did not change. Theoretically, 1.34% of the prescriptions were administered with a deficit of up to 72.4 Kcal/kg/day.
The “Rate of components or Kcal > than necessary” was frequent in patients who tolerated adequate volumes of EN (LPN (L): 140 to 150 mL/kg/day and TN: 120 to 140 mL/kg/day) [18,19,20]. Only the readjustment in the volume of PN to be prepared was evidenced and not in the concentration of nutrients that occupied the mixture, which could cause the patient to receive an intake more significant than the oxidation limit level [21].
As regards macronutrients, the DRP “amino acid rate > the necessary” (4 g/kg/day), (6.30%) was evidenced. This could probably be associated with NRAM of metabolic acidosis, azotemia, and elevated urea nitrogen in blood (BUN), triggering hyperammonemia in neurocognitive developmental imbalance, cholestasis due to prolonged administration, and electrolyte imbalance in the first days [22,23]. On the other hand, the “Lipid rate > that required” (3 mg/kg/day) (5.93%) could increase the risk of NRAMs, such as hypertriglyceridemia, liver enzyme imbalance, lipid overload syndrome, and displacement of drug plasma protein binding [24,25].
The DRP “Carbohydrate rate > necessary” (1.96%) (2 mg/kg/min) denotes that the suggested maximum oxidation rate was exceeded and can cause hyperglycemia (with water retention), risk of cardiotoxicity, hepatic steatosis, hypertriglyceridemia, increased CO2 production, and other respiratory problems, associated or not, and mechanical ventilation could increase [12,26,27]. Although other pediatric PN guidelines suggest 16 mg/kg/min (23 g/kg/day) as a maximum intake for LPN (L) and 13 mg/kg/min (18 g/kg/day) in TN, the health unit handles 12.5 mg/kg/min as the maximum limit [22].
The “Electrolyte rate > that required (summed as mEq/kg/day of chlorine)” of 3.70% indicates that the administration of the micronutrients sodium chloride and potassium chloride exceeded the suggested limits of 6.5 mEq/kg/day (suggested range: NaCl + KCl = 1–2 mmol/kg/day), increasing the risk of “hyperchloremic acidosis”, imbalances associated with intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), and other comorbidities in newborns [28].
The DRP “Fluid rate > the necessary” (0.04%) (LNP (L) is max 180 mL/kg/day; PNB max 160 mL/kg/day) is reported due to errors in the prescription or adjustment of liquid; representing a greater risk of NRAM such as pulmonary broncho dysplasia, intraventricular hemorrhage, sepsis, metabolic acidosis, lactic acidosis, respiratory ischemia, heart failure, and generalized deterioration of the clinical picture [28,29].
The “Calorie rate < the necessary” (5.82%) refers to the prescription of energy intake below the ranges recommended by the EPSGHAN (RNPT in stable phase: 90–120 Kcal/kg/day; PNB in stable phase: 75–85 Kcal/kg/day) [19].
Regarding the DRP “Phosphorus required not available” (16.69%), phosphorus was not administered to patients during the entire therapy due to insufficient input in the health unit. This inconvenience increases the risk of developing refeeding syndrome (RS) due to the mobilization of minerals from the “reserves” (bones and kidneys) to support anabolic processes [30]. In addition, studies warn that insufficient supplementation of this mineral would cause the release of phosphorus from the bone reserve with the simultaneous mobilization of calcium, causing in the long term the metabolic bone disease (MBD) RNAM with hypocalcemia less than 2.2 mmol/L, hypophosphatemia less than 4.5 mg/dl or 1.45 mmol/L, and the elevation of alkaline phosphatase more significant than 500 IU/L (visible at 2 weeks of postnatal age); the results were corroborated using imaging tests [31,32].
In turn, uncontrolled chronic hypophosphatemia can cause respiratory and myocardial failure due to ATP depletion of the myocyte, rhabdomyolysis, anemia, hemolysis, seizures, and metabolic acidosis [33].
The DRP “Necessary vitamins not available” (16.69%) indicates an acquisition problem related to administrative management and/or market availability, which leads to prescribing several vitamins that cover essential biological functions. The deficiency, mainly of thiamine pyrophosphate, may be related to damage to the oxidative metabolism of carbohydrates, proteins, and fatty acids, contributing to the appearance of lactic acidosis [34].
Clinical validation made it possible to describe the DRP “Lipid infusion rate > the recommended 1.7 mg/kg/min (0.10 g/kg/h) (2.11%)”, which refers to the rate of infusion higher than the estimated limits for the oxidation capacity, increasing the risk of lipid overload with consequent pulmonary edema. The DRP “Lipid infusion rate < the recommended 1.2 mg/kg/min (0.07 g/kg/h)” (7.55%) states that the objective nutritional guideline would not be being met in the patient [35].
The DRP “Toxicity risk associated with packaging material” (28.25%) refers to the risk of aluminum contamination for using calcium gluconate in glass ampoules as components of PN. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) suggests that the declared aluminum concentration should not exceed 25 mcg/L and for no reason should exceed 5 mcg/kg/day of aluminum in the therapy of the patient with PN [10]. Otherwise, the NB, especially LPN(L) with PN for more than 10 days, could suffer damage in the neurocognitive development, bone mineralization problems, long-term renal failure, cholestasis, and liver damage reported in other studies [36,37].
The incompatibility in “Y” (2.11%) mainly describes the association of PN with dopamine and/or dobutamine, for which the pharmacotherapeutic follow-up service (SFT) of the health unit advises that joint infusion with these drugs for 24 h can cause a loss of up to 10% of the active concentration and decreased effectiveness. The reaction could be explained by the pH of the lipid emulsion; thus, for PN 2 in 1, no incompatibility is reported [38].
Possible PN drug interactions (0.24%) were also determined. Linezolid, a licosamide with MAOI action, can interact with tyrosine, phenylalanine (dopamine precursors), and tryptophan (serotonin precursor), causing a difficult-to-manage dopaminergic or serotonin syndrome, especially in critically ill patients who maintain a dopamine infusion pump. The fluconazole/PN association may contribute to the elevation of liver markers, increasing the risk of cholestasis or complications of a pre-existing condition [25,39,40].
The limitations for detecting NRAM refer to problems of acquisition and availability of reagents and/or recommended markers necessary for the follow-up of patients with nutritional therapy, such as the case of phosphorus and BUN. Although there are studies focused on DRPs as causes of NRAM, these are scarce in parenteral nutrition, so the research presented here describes several novel or unconventional DRPs in pharmaceutical practice [7,9,11,41,42].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, although there are studies focused on DRPs as causes of NRAM, these are scarce in parenteral nutrition, so this research describes several novel or unconventional DRPs in pharmaceutical practice. The information provided in this research can serve as a precedent for creating hospital nutritional therapy committees focused on the individualized analysis of nutritional needs that allow identifying, resolving, reducing, and preventing risks associated with PN.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.M.B. and I.T.; methodology, A.A.M.B.; software, I.T.; validation, A.A.M.B. and I.T.; formal analysis, I.T.; investigation, E.N.V.D.; resources, E.N.V.D.; data curation, E.N.V.D.; writing—original draft preparation, D.T.L. and M.A.C.R.; writing—review and editing, I.T., D.T.L. and M.A.C.R.; visualization, A.A.M.B.; supervision, I.T.; project administration, A.A.M.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by the Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of Committee of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador (CEISH-PUCE) (NUMBER PV-03–202).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from patients’ parents to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

Data were collected on an Excel spreadsheet for analysis, and results presented in this paper were shared with the author team.

Acknowledgments

We want to express our sincere gratitude to the Escuela Superior Politécnica de Chimborazo. In addition, we thank the Universidad Técnica de Ambato for their scientific support for the publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviation

NRAMsnegative results associated with medications
NRAMNegative result associated with medication
PNparenteral nutrition
DRPsdrug-related problems
NBnewborns
PNBpreterm newborns
CENcomplementary enteral nutrition
ENenteral nutrition
GAgestational age
BWbirth weight
APGARappearance, pulse, grimace, activity, respiration.
CEISH-PUCEHuman Research Ethics Committee of the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador
VLBWvery low birth weight
NICUneonatal intensive care unit
TNterm newborn
LPN (T)late preterm newborn
MPN (M)moderate preterm newborn
SPN (Sev)severe preterm newborn
EPN (Ext)extremely preterm newborn
ABWadequate birth weight
LBWlow birth weight
ExLBWextremely low birth weight
DBdirect bilirubin
BTtotal bilirubin
ALTalanine aminotransferase
GAgestational age
ESevolution sheet
VGIvolume of glucose infusion
EUNelevated urea nitrogen
IVHintraventricular hemorrhage
NPOnothing by mouth
MCTmedium chain triglycerides
SIRSsystemic inflammatory response syndrome
FDAFood and Drug Administration
SFTfollow-up service
ESPGHANEuropean Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition

References

  1. Faus Dáder, M.J.; Amariles Muñoz, P.; Martinez Martínez, F. Atención Farmacéutica: Conceptos, Procesos y Casos Prácticos; Ergon: Madrid, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pharmaceutical Care Research Group. University of Granada (Spain). Third Consensus of Granada on Drug Related Problems (DRP) and Negative Outcomes associated with Medication (NOM). Ars Pharm. 2007, 48, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  3. Katoue, M.G.; Al-Taweel, D. Role of the pharmacist in parenteral nutrition therapy: Challenges and opportunities to implement pharmaceutical care in Kuwait. Pharm. Pract. 2016, 14, 680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Mercedes, C.; Diaz, M. Desequilibrio Hidroelectrolítico en Pacientes Pediátricos Posquirúrgicos del Sistema Digestivo con Tratamiento de Nutrición Parenteral. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Escuela de Enfermería, Mendoza, Argentina, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  5. Lavoie, J.-C.; Chessex, P. Parenteral nutrition and oxidant stress in the newborn: A narrative review. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2019, 142, 155–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Hartman, C.; Shamir, R.; Simchowitz, V.; Lohner, S.; Cai, W.; Decsi, T.; Braegger, C.; Bronsky, J.; Campoy, C.; Carnielli, V.; et al. ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines on pediatric parenteral nutrition: Complications. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 2418–2429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Mantegazza, C.; Landy, N.; Zuccotti, G.V.; Köglmeier, J. Indications and complications of inpatient parenteral nutrition prescribed to children in a large tertiary referral hospital. Ital. J. Pediatr. 2018, 44, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Quiroz, J. Complicaciones Médicas y Quirúrgicas de la Nutrición Parenteral en el Servicio de Neonatologia del 1RO Enero Al 31 Diciembre Del 2012; Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México: Toluca, Mexico, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  9. Arroyo, M.; Da, C.; Bolívar, J.F.; Barraza, A.; Sarabia, A.; Barrios, G. Pharmacotherapeutic follow-up in patients with total parenteral nutrition. Rev. OFIL·ILAPHAR 2018, 4, 313–318. [Google Scholar]
  10. Corkins, M.R. Aluminum Effects in Infants and Children. Pediatrics 2019, 144, e20193148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Guenter, P.; Ayers, P.; Boullata, J.I.; Gura, K.M.; Holcombe, B.; Sacks, G.S. Parenteral Nutrition Errors and Potential Errors Reported Over the Past 10 Years. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 2017, 32, 826–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Katoue, M.G. Role of pharmacists in providing parenteral nutrition support: Current insights and future directions. Integr. Pharm. Res. Pract. 2018, 7, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Kraft, M.D.; Tucker, A.M.; Durfee, S.M.; Jones, T.; Guenter, P.; Banko, D.E.; Ayers, P.; Boullata, J.; Raymond, E.; Sacks, G.S. Parenteral Nutrition Prescribing and Order Review Safety Study: The Need for Pharmacist Intervention. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 2020, 36, 480–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Boullata, J.I.; Mirtallo, J.M.; Sacks, G.S.; Salman, G.; Gura, K.; Canada, T.; Maguire, A.; the ASPEN Parenteral Nutrition Safety Committee. Parenteral nutrition compatibility and stability: A comprehensive review. J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 2021, 46, 273–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hermanspann, T.; Schoberer, M.; Robel-Tillig, E.; Härtel, C.; Goelz, R.; Orlikowsky, T.; Eisert, A. Incidence and Severity of Prescribing Errors in Parenteral Nutrition for Pediatric Inpatients at a Neonatal and Pediatric Intensive Care Unit. Front. Pediatr. 2017, 5, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Alomi, Y.A.; Fallatah, A.O.; Al-Shubaar, N.; Qohal, A.A.; Alameer, L.Y. The Clinical Outcomes of Pharmacist Interventions in Total Parenteral Nutrition services in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Pharmacol. Clin. Sci. 2019, 8, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Mesotten, D.; Joosten, K.; Kempen AVan Verbruggen, S.; Espen, E.; Cspen, E. ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines on pediatric parenteral nutrition: Carbohydrates. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 2337–2343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Justyna, C.K. Mineral and nutritional requirements of preterm infant. Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020, 25, 101071. [Google Scholar]
  19. Joosten, K.; Embleton, N.; Yan, W.; Senterre, T.; Braegger, C.; Bronsky, J.; the ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN working group on pediatric parenteral nutrition. ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines on pediatric parenteral nutrition: Energy. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 2309–2314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. NICE. Neonatal Parenteral Nutrition; NICE: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Mena, P.; Milad, M.; Vernal, P.; Escalante, M.J. Nutrición intrahospitalaria del prematuro. Recomendaciones de la Rama de Neonatología de la Sociedad Chilena de Pediatría. Rev Chil Pediatr. 2016, 87, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Abida, H.; Rosminah, M.; Othman, N.L.N. Pharmacyst’s Handbook of Parenteral Nutrition in Neonates and Pediatrics; Mohd, R., Ed.; Ministry of Health Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2015.
  23. Van Goudoever, J.B.; Carnielli, V.; Darmaun, D.; de Pipaon, M.S.; the ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN working group on pediatric parenteral nutrition. ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines on pediatric parenteral nutrition: Amino acids. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 2315–2323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Hayes, B.; Gosselin, S.; Calello, D.; Nacca, N.; Rollins, C.J.; Abourbih, D.; Morris, M.; Nesbitt-Miller, A.; Morais, J.A.; Lavergne, V.; et al. Systematic review of clinical adverse events reported after acute intravenous lipid emulsion administration. Clin. Toxicol. 2016, 54, 365–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ambel, H.Q.; Manuel, J.; Sesmero, M. Drug-nutrient interactions in artificial nutritional support. Real Acad. Nac. Farm. 2018, 84, 12. [Google Scholar]
  26. van Nispen, J.; Voigt, M.; Song, E.; Armstrong, A.; Fedorova, M.; Murali, V.; Krebs, J.; Samaddar, A.; Manithody, C.; Jain, A. Parenteral Nutrition and Cardiotoxicity. Cardiovasc. Toxicol. 2021, 21, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Costa, C.M.; Giner, C.P. Requerimentos en nutrición parenteral pediátrica. Nutr. Hosp. 2017, 34, 14–23. [Google Scholar]
  28. Braegger, C.; Bronsky, J.; Cai, W.; Campoy, C.; Carnielli, V.; Darmaun, D.; Decsi, T.; Domellöf, M.; Embleton, N.; Fewtrell, M.; et al. ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines on pediatric parenteral nutrition: Fluid and electrolytes. Clin. Nutr. 2018, 37, 2344–2353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Prathik, B.H.; Aradhya, A.S.; Sahoo, T.; Saini, S.S. Neonatal Total Parenteral Nutrition: Clinical Implications from Recent NICE Guidelines. Indian Pediatr. 2021, 58, 67–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Cormack, B.E.; Jiang, Y.; Harding, J.E.; Crowther, C.A.; Bloomfield, F.H.; for the ProVIDe Trial Group. Neonatal Refeeding Syndrome and Clinical Outcome in Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Babies: Secondary Cohort Analysis from the ProVIDe Trial. J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 2020, 45, 65–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Galletti, M.F. Hipofosfatemia Temprana Asociada al uso de Nutrición Parenteral Agresiva en Prematuros: Estudio de Cohorte, Multicéntrico. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano Hipofosfatemia. 2019. Available online: file:///C:/Users/MDPI/Downloads/tesis-galletti-maria.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2022).
  32. Tan, Y.; Tsao, P.; Chou, H.; Yen, T.; Chen, C. Hypophosphatemia as an Early Metabolic Bone Disease Marker in Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants After Prolonged Parenteral Nutrition Exposure. J. Parenter. Enter. Nutr. 2020, 45, 1268–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cubillos Celis, M.P.; Nannig, P.M. Hypophosphatemia in preterm infants: A bimodal disorder. Rev. Chil. Pediatr. 2018, 89, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Araujo Castro, M.; Vázquez Martínez, C. The refeeding syndrome. Importance of phosphorus. Med. Clin. 2018, 150, 472–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jack, T.; Boehne, M.; Brent, B.E.; Hoy, L.; Köditz, H.; Wessel, A.; Sasse, M. In-line filtration reduces severe complications and length of stay on pediatric intensive care unit: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2012, 38, 1008–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. IBM Corporation. NeoFax® Drug Monograph Summary-MICROMEDEX; ©Copyright IBM Corporation: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. Salomé Anaya-Flórez, M.; Barbosa-Cortés, L.; Revista Mexicana de Colestasis y Nutrición Parenteral en Pediatría. Artículo de Revisión. 2018. Available online: www.medigraphic.org.mx (accessed on 21 July 2022).
  38. Castells Lao, G.; Rodríguez Reyes, M.; Roura Turet, J.; Prat Dot, M.; Soy Muner, D.; López Cabezas, C. Compatibility of drugs administered as Y-site infusion in intensive care units: A systematic review. Med. Intensiva 2020, 44, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Staven, V.; Wang, S.; Grønlie, I.; Tho, I. Physical stability of an all-in-one parenteral nutrition admixture for preterm infants upon mixing with micronutrients and drugs. Eur. J. Hosp. Pharm. 2018, 27, 36–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Stawny, M.; Nadolna, M.; Jelińska, A. In vitro compatibility studies of vancomycin with ready-to-use parenteral nutrition admixtures for safer clinical practice. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 39, 2539–2546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Cernat, E.; Puntis, J. Paediatric parenteral nutrition: Current issues. Front. Gastroenterol. 2019, 11, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Moreno Villare, J.M.; Terradillos, I. Complications of pediatric parenteral nutrition. Nutr. Hosp. 2017, 34, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. General characteristics of the study population.
Table 1. General characteristics of the study population.
DescriptionAverage ± SDMin–Max.N%
Gender
Male--4051
Female--3849
Type of birth
Cesarean--6988
Normal--912
Weight
Birth weight1.640 ± 0.6440.670–3.845
Adequate birth weight (ABW)2.955 ± 0.4682.506–3.8451013
Low birth weight (LBW)1.774 ± 0.2321.520–2.4403140
Very low birth weight (VLBW)1.294 ± 0.1651.00–1.4802734
Extremely low birth weight (ExLBW)0.832 ± 0.1000.670–0.9601013
Age
Gestational age33.000 ± 3.10025.520–40.401
Term newborn (TN)37.812 ± 1.25036.421–40.4011013
Late preterm newborn LPN (L)34.100 ± 0.92133.100–36.4053444
Moderate preterm newborn MPN (M)31.901 ± 0.80530.212–33.0011924
Severe preterm newborn SPN (Sev)29.305 ± 0.41229.005–30.002810
Extremely preterm newborn EPN (Ext)26.704 ± 0.91225.013–28.02579
Score APGAR
Minute 17.001 ± 1.8051.001–10.002
(a) 7–107.950 ± 0.6517.002–8.0125976
(b) 4–64.932 ± 0.8324.043–6.023 1418
(c) NV-31.753 ± 0.961NV–3.0 56
Minute 59.001 ± 1.3051.001–10.015
(a) 7–108.812 ± 0.4127.023–10.0127292
(b) 4–66.005 ± 0.0006.00134
(c) NV-32.012 ± 1.405NV–3.001 34
Nutritional therapy
Time of nutritional therapy administered (days)12.001 ± 7.7051.001–30.049
(a) >2823.601 ± 1.32331.00111
(b) 21–2824.701 ± 2.10522.013–28.0111013
(c) 14–2118.071 ± 1.70115.001–21.0021418
(d) 7–1410.962 ± 1.9328.000–14.0052532
(e) 1–73.961 ± 2.1051.000–7.0152836
Mix type 920100
2 in 1--435
2 in 1 + lipids apart--41845
3 in 1--45950
Drugs
Number of drugs administered during nutritional therapy (drugs/day)5.001 ± 2.1221.501–10.561--
Mortality
Yes --1722
No6178
NV: no value; adequate birth weight (ABW): heavier than 2500 g; low birth weight (LBW): weight < 2500–1501 g; very low birth weight (VLBW): weight < 1500–1001 g; extremely low birth weight (ExLBW): weight < 1000 g; term newborn (TN): gestational age 37–41 weeks; late preterm newborn LPN (L): gestational age 34–36.6 weeks; moderate preterm newborn MPN (M): gestational age 31–≤33 weeks; severe preterm newborn SPN (Sev): gestational age 29–≤30 weeks; extremely preterm newborn EPN (Ext): gestational age ≤ 28 weeks; APGAR: test that evaluates appearance (skin color), pulse (heart rate), irritability (Grimace in English), activity (muscular tone), respiration (rate and respiratory effort); >7 continue with mother until minute assessment 5 y <7 transfer to the care area for the evaluation and stabilization; mix type 2 in 1: includes amino acids and carbohydrates in the same bag of PN; 2 in 1 + separate lipids: includes amino acids and carbohydrates in the same PN bag and lipids administered in Y; 3 in 1: includes lipids, amino acids, and carbohydrates in the same bag of PN.
Table
Table 2. Drug-related problems (DRPs) as administrative, physicochemical, and clinical validation.
Table 2. Drug-related problems (DRPs) as administrative, physicochemical, and clinical validation.
DRPsn%
Validation		% Total
Administrative Validation2501003.57
Error or absence in the patient data6425.60
Evidence of amendment2911.62
Typing error of the components in the prescription
 Typing error in the calories declared in the evolution sheet
47
18.82
 Typing error in the rate of micronutrients declared in the evolution sheet3815.20
 Typing error in the total volume to prepare the PN and/or the infusion rate declared in the progress sheet197.62
 Typing error in the dextrose rate declared in the evolution sheet187.21
 Typing error in the lipid rate declared in the evolution sheet156.00
 Typing error in the declared amino acid ratio in the evolution sheet135.21
Duplication of prescription sheets31.23
Wrong prescription for the patient31.22
Omission of the prescription10.42
Physicochemical validation551210078.81
Calculation error of caloric intake and/or declared value in the clinical history92016.69
Necessary vitamins not available92016.69
Phosphorus required not available92016.69
Filters 1.2 µ not available87715.91
Filters 0.22 µ not available4618.36
Amino acid rate > necessary3476.30
Lipid rate > to necessary3275.93
Calorie rate < to necessary 3215.82
Electrolyte rate > that required (summed as mEq/kg/day of chlorine) 2043.70
Carbohydrate rate > necessary1081.96
Lipid rate < to necessary701.27
Calorie rate > the necessary180.33
Carbohydrate rate < to necessary170.31
Fluid rate > to necessary20.04
Clinic Validation123210017.62
Toxicity risk associated with packaging material.34828.25
Kcal/gN ratio < (100–130)16913.72
Phosphorus analysis not available12910.47
Magnesium analysis not available12910.47
BUN test not performed12910.47
Lipid infusion rate <recommended (0.35 mL/kg/h)937.55
Kcal/gN ratio < (150–200)887.14
Lipid infusion rate > recommended (0.51 mL/kg/h)262.11
PN-drug incompatibility (dopamine and/or dobutamine)262.11
ALT analysis not available231.87
AST analysis not available231.87
Direct bilirubin analysis not available231.87
Alkaline phosphatase test not available231.87
PN-drug interaction30.24
DRP: Drug-related Problems; PN: parenteral nutrition; BUN: blood urea nitrogen; AST: Aspartate Aminotransferase; ALT: Alanine aminotransferase.
Table
Table 3. NRAM classification, statistical association (p < 0.05), and risk relationship with DRPs.
Table 3. NRAM classification, statistical association (p < 0.05), and risk relationship with DRPs.
Classification of NRAM Granada 2007 (%)CriteriaNRAMn%DRPsp-ValueRR (CI 95%)
NEED
(16)		(I): Untreated health problemAlkaline phosphatase elevation711Phosphorus needed not available˂0.0010.4 (0.141–0.648)
Lactic acidosis35Necessary vitamins not available0.0010.2 (0.073–0.681)
EFFECTIVITY (11)(IV): Ineffective quantitativeHypoalbuminemia58Relation Kcal/gN < (100–130)0.5701.4 (0.537–3.396)
Hypoglycemia23Carbohydrate rate < necessary0.1274.5 (0.768–26.405)
SECURITY
(72)		(VI): Insecurity quantitativeCholestasis1220Lipid level > to necessary0.0013.2 (1.720–6.109)
Hyperchloremia915Electrolyte rate > that required (summed as mEq/kg/day of chlorine)0.8451.0 (0.548–2.005)
Elevated liver enzymes711Lipid level > to necessary0.1651.9 (0.855–4.183)
Metabolic acidosis610Amino acid rate > necessary0.4321.4 (0.605–3.227)
Hyperglucemia711Carbohydrate rate > necessary0.0242.8 (1.203–6.430)
Hypertriglyceridemia23Lipid level > to necessary0.0836.8 (0.969–47.067)
Hypercalcemia 12Calcium level > necessary0.3403.4 (0.311–36.684)
NRAM: negative result associated with medication. DRPs: drug-related problems. (I): Untreated health problem: the patient suffers from a health problem associated with not receiving the necessary medication. (IV): Quantitative ineffectiveness: the patient suffers from a health problem associated with a quantitative ineffectiveness of the medication. (VI): Quantitative uncertainty: the patient suffers from a health problem related to quantitative uncertainty about a drug. Alkaline phosphatase elevation: >500 UI/L. Lactic acidosis: anion gap ({Na+}–{Cl− + CO3H−} > 14 and lactic acid > 2.1 mmol/L. Hypoalbuminemia: albumin in the blood < 30 g/L. Hypoglycemia: normal glucose range 40–45 mg/dL. Cholestasis: direct bilirubin (DB) greater than 2 mg/dL or greater than 20% of total bilirubin (BT) when BT is higher than 5 mg/dL. Hyperchloremia: normal range 100–109 mmol/L, elevated > 109 mmol/L. Elevated liver enzymes: alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normal range 0–35 IU, aspartate aminotransferase normal range 0–35 IU, metabolic acidosis: anion gap ({Na+}–{Cl− + CO3H−} > 14. Hyperglycemia: glucose concentration > 145 mg/dL. Hypertriglyceridemia: normal range 150–200 mg/dL, elevated > 200 mg/dL. Hypercalcemia: normal range 1.12–1.32 mmol/L, elevated 1.32 mmol/L. CI: confidence interval at 95%.
Table
Table 4. Multivariate analysis of negative results associated with medication (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Multivariate analysis of negative results associated with medication (p < 0.05).
FactorsAlkaline Phosphatase ElevationLactic AcidosisCholestasisHyperglycemia
Birth weight0.3930.1970.4420.075
Gestational age (GA)
PNB0.9670.1880.7800.031 *
TN0.5190.7000.029 *0.764
APGARassessment
Apgar 1′0.4640.1830.7880.696
Apgar 5′0.7760.030 *0.7240.629
Time of nutritional therapy administered (days)
<14 days0.8820.7850.7850.427
>14 days0.037 *0.3370.9660.056
Number of drugs administered during nutritional therapy (drug/day)0.014 *0.2140.4570.766
* p < 0.05. PNB: preterm newborn; TN: term newborn.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vega Díaz, E.N.; Miranda Barros, A.A.; Castelo Reyna, M.A.; Tenelanda López, D.; Tubon, I. Negative Outcomes Associated with Medication in Neonates on Parenteral Nutrition Therapy. Pediatr. Rep. 2023, 15, 360-372. https://doi.org/10.3390/pediatric15020032

AMA Style

Vega Díaz EN, Miranda Barros AA, Castelo Reyna MA, Tenelanda López D, Tubon I. Negative Outcomes Associated with Medication in Neonates on Parenteral Nutrition Therapy. Pediatric Reports. 2023; 15(2):360-372. https://doi.org/10.3390/pediatric15020032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vega Díaz, Evelin Nataly, Aida Adriana Miranda Barros, Monica Alexandra Castelo Reyna, Dennys Tenelanda López, and Irvin Tubon. 2023. "Negative Outcomes Associated with Medication in Neonates on Parenteral Nutrition Therapy" Pediatric Reports 15, no. 2: 360-372. https://doi.org/10.3390/pediatric15020032

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop