Schroeder, Sarah E.

AbstractBackgroundBariatric surgery is by far the most effective treatment option available for successfully achieving and maintaining weight loss in the obese population, but it can also be associated with complications that lead to malnutrition. There is limited data on how enteral nutrition (EN) can be used to provide nutrition support in such cases.MethodsRetrospective review of our Home Enteral Nutrition (HEN) database was conducted from February 2013 to April 2018 to identify patients who received HEN because of bariatric surgery–related complication.ResultsDuring the study period, 72 patients (86% female, mean age 50.3 ± 11.6 years) initiated HEN because of bariatric surgical complication. Most common bariatric surgery was Roux‐en‐Y (74%) and most common indication for HEN was malnutrition/failure to thrive (33%). HEN was most commonly provided through nasojejunal feeds and resulted in an average increase in body weight and body mass index from 74.8 kg and 26.5, respectively, before HEN to 76.9 kg and 27.2, respectively, at the end of the HEN period. Through HEN, patients received 22.2 ± 7.9 kcal/kg/d and 1.0 ± 0.3 g/kg/d protein, meeting 94% ± 17% of their energy goals and 95% ± 29% of their protein goals. Vitamin deficiencies were noted in 69% of patients at the time of HEN initiation, which improved to 10% after enteral feeds and appropriate vitamin supplementation.ConclusionHEN is safe and effective in treating malnutrition and vitamin deficiencies that might occur as a complication of bariatric surgery, leading to avoidance of parenteral nutrition support in most cases.

International normalized ratio (INR) measurements manage risks of bleeding and clotting sequelae in the population with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Studies suggest that point-of-care (POC) INR does not significantly differ from plasma INR (P-INR) values in other patient populations, although this has not been validated in a multicenter LVAD study. We sought to determine whether POC-INR and P-INR values differ significantly in the LVAD population and reviewed patients with permanent LVAD implantation at seven institutions internationally. Our cohort comprised of 279 paired POC-INR and P-INR checks in patients supported on average 630 ± 598 days postimplant with predominately HeartWare, HeartMate II, and HeartMate III devices. The population averaged 57.9 years of age, and there were 86.7% male. We found no statistically significant difference between POC-INR and P-INR values. International normalized ratio accuracy correlated weakly with the time between INR measurements (p < 0.001). When the time difference was less than 4 hours, the difference between INR pairs was significantly lower than measurements greater than 8 hours (p = 0.006). There was no statistically significant difference when comparing paired INR values and time after implant to INR check (p = 0.43), age (p = 0.12), known coagulopathy (p = 0.12), bleeding history (p = 0.22), or thrombosis history (p = 0.34). This is the first large multicenter international study comparing POC-INR and P-INR measurements in patients with LVAD and found no statistically significant difference between either methods, particularly when measured within less than 4 hours of each other.