{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04873294346978557, 'fraction_numerical': 0.036387264457439894, 'mean_word_length': 4.746268656716418, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 5, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of a three-in-one total nutrient mixture with conventional peripheral parenteral nutrition in children.

BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to compare clinical aspects of the application of three-in-one total nutrient mixture (TNA) for peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) with those of the conventional PPN (cPPN) method of providing short-term parenteral nutrition for pediatric inpatients.


METHODS
We conducted a retrospective study in children from 2 to 18 years old who were hospitalized and underwent PPN administration. We compared clinical aspects of two methods of PPN, cPPN (n=39) and TNA (n=57).


RESULTS
The mean age was 6.5±3.1 years in the cPPN group and 8.2±3.4years in the TNA group (p=0.015). In the TNA group, there was a significantly shorter period between the day of admission and the first day of PPN or oral feeding (p<0.0001 & p<0.0001, respectively).The TNA group also fasted for a shorter period before PN after admission, and the total duration of fasting was also shorter (p<0.0001 & p<0.0001, respectively). The TNA group showed a lower glucose infusion rate and fewer daily administered total calories per weight (p<0.0001 & p=0.001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in the amount of administered amino acids and lipids (p=0.584 & p=0.650, respectively) and PPN-related complications.


CONCLUSIONS
When providing nutrients to hospitalized children who cannot take in enough nutrients via the enteral route, TNA formula may be an easier and faster method than cPPN.