Total parenteral nutrition by peripheral vein--substitute or supplement to the central venous route? A prospective trial

51 consecutive gastroenterological patients who required total parenteral nutrition (TPN) were entered into this study. Two patients were withdrawn because of specific nutritional requirements, leaving 49 patients for randomisation. 23 patients were allocated to receive peripheral parenteral nutrition (PPN) and 26 to receive feeding through a central venous line (CPN). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the median duration of feeding (9.4 +/- 3.6 days; 12.0 +/- 7.8 days) but significant morbidity occurred more frequently in the CPN group (11%) compared to the PPN group (0%). TPN by the designated route was not possible in 4 patients in the PPN group and in 3 of the CPN group. Of the 19 patients commenced on PPN, 13 continued without complication until resumption of oral feeding (median 10.7 +/- 3.2 days); 6 of these patients had to be converted to central venous feeding for completion of their nutritional requirements. Of the 23 patients commenced on CPN, 21 completed their nutritional course (median 11.8 +/- 5.3 days), 2 patients in the CPN group required conversion to PPN to complete their nutritional course. This study shows that PPN is a feasible, safe alternative to CPN in many patients. It is not necessary to subject all patients who require TPN to the risks and expense of central venous cannulation.