Economic implications of an early postoperative enteral feeding protocol

ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical nutrition in surgery

Early oral feeding is the preferred mode of nutrition for surgical patients. Avoidance of any nutritional therapy bears the risk of underfeeding during the postoperative course after major surgery. Considering that malnutrition and underfeeding are risk factors for postoperative complications, early enteral feeding is especially relevant for any surgical patient at nutritional risk, especially for those undergoing upper gastrointestinal surgery. The focus of this guideline is to cover both nutritional aspects of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) concept and the special nutritional needs of patients undergoing major surgery, e.g. for cancer, and of those developing severe complications despite best perioperative care. From a metabolic and nutritional point of view, the key aspects of perioperative care include the integration of nutrition into the overall management of the patient, avoidance of long periods of preoperative fasting, re-establishment of oral feeding as early as possible after surgery, the start of nutritional therapy immediately if a nutritional risk becomes apparent, metabolic control e.g. of blood glucose, reduction of factors which exacerbate stress-related catabolism or impaired gastrointestinal function, minimized time on paralytic agents for ventilator management in the postoperative period, and early mobilization to facilitate protein synthesis and muscle function.

Early enteral nutrition within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal surgery versus later commencement for length of hospital stay and postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the review last published in 2011. It focuses on early postoperative enteral nutrition after lower gastrointestinal surgery. Traditional management consisted of 'nil by mouth', where patients receive fluids followed by solids after bowel function has returned. Although several trials have reported lower incidence of infectious complications and faster wound healing upon early feeding, other trials have shown no effect. The immediate advantage of energy intake (carbohydrates, protein or fat) could enhance recovery with fewer complications, and this warrants a systematic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether early commencement of postoperative enteral nutrition (within 24 hours), oral intake and any kind of tube feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal), compared with traditional management (delayed nutritional supply) is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LoS), fewer complications, mortality and adverse events in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery (distal to the ligament of Treitz).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 15 November 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 15 November 2017). We also searched for ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (15 November 2017). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and previous systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing early commencement of enteral nutrition (within 24 hours) with no feeding in adult participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool tailored to this review and extracted data. Data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations.We rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE.Primary outcomes were LoS and postoperative complications (wound infections, intraabdominal abscesses, anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia).Secondary outcomes were: mortality, adverse events (nausea, vomiting), and quality of life (QoL).LoS was estimated using mean difference (MD (presented as mean +/- SD). For other outcomes we estimated the common risk ratio (RR) and calculated the associated 95% confidence intervals. For analysis, we used an inverse-variance random-effects model for the primary outcome (LoS) and Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models for the secondary outcomes. We also performed Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 RCTs with 1437 participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in two or more domains. Six studies were judged as having low risk of selection bias for random sequence generation and insufficient details were provided for judgement on allocation concealment in all 17 studies. With regards to performance and deception bias; 14 studies reported no attempt to blind participants and blinding of personnel was not discussed either. Only one study was judged as low risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessor. With regards to incomplete outcome data, three studies were judged to be at high risk because they had more than 10% difference in missing data between groups. For selective reporting, nine studies were judged as unclear as protocols were not provided and eight studies had issues with either missing data or incomplete reporting of results.LOS was reported in 16 studies (1346 participants). The mean LoS ranged from four days to 16 days in the early feeding groups and from 6.6 days to 23.5 days in the control groups. Mean difference (MD) in LoS was 1.95 (95% CI, -2.99 to -0.91, P < 0.001) days shorter in the early feeding group. However, there was substantial heterogeneity between included studies (I² = 81, %, Chi² = 78.98, P < 0.00001), thus the overall quality of evidence for LoS is low. These results were confirmed by the TSA showing that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit.We found no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications: wound infection (12 studies, 1181 participants, RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.52, very low-quality evidence), intraabdominal abscesses (6 studies, 554 participants, RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.26 to 3.80, low-quality evidence), anastomotic leakage/dehiscence (13 studies, 1232 participants, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.38 to 1.61, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 100), and pneumonia (10 studies, 954 participants, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.32 to 2.42, low-quality evidence; NNTB = 333).Mortality was reported in 12 studies (1179 participants), and showed no between-group differences (RR = 0.56, 95%CI, 0.21 to 1.52, P = 0.26, I² = 0%, Chi² = 3.08, P = 0.96, low-quality evidence). The most commonly reported cause of death was anastomotic leakage, sepsis and acute myocardial infarction.Seven studies (613 participants) reported vomiting (RR 1.23, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.58, P = 0.10, I² = 0%, Chi² = 4.98, P = 0.55, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 19), and two studies (118 participants) reported nausea (RR 0.95, 0.71 to 1.26, low-quality evidence). Four studies reported combined nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.74, very low-quality evidence). One study reported QoL assessment; the scores did not differ between groups at 30 days after discharge on either QoL scale EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QlQ-OV28 (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that early enteral feeding may lead to a reduced postoperative LoS, however cautious interpretation must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality evidence. For all other outcomes (postoperative complications, mortality, adverse events, and QoL) the findings are inconclusive, and further trials are justified to enhance the understanding of early feeding for these. In this updated review, only a few additional studies have been included, and these were small and of poor quality.To improve the evidence, future trials should address quality issues and focus on clearly defining and measuring postoperative complications to allow for better comparison between studies. However due to the introduction of fast track protocols which already include an early feeding component, future trials may be challenging. A more feasible trial may be to investigate the effect of differing postoperative energy intake regimens on relevant outcomes.

Early enteral nutrition within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal surgery versus later commencement for length of hospital stay and postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the review last published in 2011. It focuses on early postoperative enteral nutrition after lower gastrointestinal surgery. Traditional management consisted of 'nil by mouth', where patients receive fluids followed by solids after bowel function has returned. Although several trials have reported lower incidence of infectious complications and faster wound healing upon early feeding, other trials have shown no effect. The immediate advantage of energy intake (carbohydrates, protein or fat) could enhance recovery with fewer complications, and this warrants a systematic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether early commencement of postoperative enteral nutrition (within 24 hours), oral intake and any kind of tube feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal), compared with traditional management (delayed nutritional supply) is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LoS), fewer complications, mortality and adverse events in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery (distal to the ligament of Treitz).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 15 November 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 15 November 2017). We also searched for ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (15 November 2017). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and previous systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing early commencement of enteral nutrition (within 24 hours) with no feeding in adult participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool tailored to this review and extracted data. Data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations.We rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE.Primary outcomes were LoS and postoperative complications (wound infections, intraabdominal abscesses, anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia).Secondary outcomes were: mortality, adverse events (nausea, vomiting), and quality of life (QoL).LoS was estimated using mean difference (MD (presented as mean +/- SD). For other outcomes we estimated the common risk ratio (RR) and calculated the associated 95% confidence intervals. For analysis, we used an inverse-variance random-effects model for the primary outcome (LoS) and Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models for the secondary outcomes. We also performed Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 RCTs with 1437 participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in two or more domains. Six studies were judged as having low risk of selection bias for random sequence generation and insufficient details were provided for judgement on allocation concealment in all 17 studies. With regards to performance and deception bias; 14 studies reported no attempt to blind participants and blinding of personnel was not discussed either. Only one study was judged as low risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessor. With regards to incomplete outcome data, three studies were judged to be at high risk because they had more than 10% difference in missing data between groups. For selective reporting, nine studies were judged as unclear as protocols were not provided and eight studies had issues with either missing data or incomplete reporting of results.LOS was reported in 16 studies (1346 participants). The mean LoS ranged from four days to 16 days in the early feeding groups and from 6.6 days to 23.5 days in the control groups. Mean difference (MD) in LoS was 1.95 (95% CI, -2.99 to -0.91, P < 0.001) days shorter in the early feeding group. However, there was substantial heterogeneity between included studies (I² = 81, %, Chi² = 78.98, P < 0.00001), thus the overall quality of evidence for LoS is low. These results were confirmed by the TSA showing that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit.We found no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications: wound infection (12 studies, 1181 participants, RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.52, very low-quality evidence), intraabdominal abscesses (6 studies, 554 participants, RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.26 to 3.80, low-quality evidence), anastomotic leakage/dehiscence (13 studies, 1232 participants, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.38 to 1.61, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 100), and pneumonia (10 studies, 954 participants, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.32 to 2.42, low-quality evidence; NNTB = 333).Mortality was reported in 12 studies (1179 participants), and showed no between-group differences (RR = 0.56, 95%CI, 0.21 to 1.52, P = 0.26, I² = 0%, Chi² = 3.08, P = 0.96, low-quality evidence). The most commonly reported cause of death was anastomotic leakage, sepsis and acute myocardial infarction.Seven studies (613 participants) reported vomiting (RR 1.23, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.58, P = 0.10, I² = 0%, Chi² = 4.98, P = 0.55, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 19), and two studies (118 participants) reported nausea (RR 0.95, 0.71 to 1.26, low-quality evidence). Four studies reported combined nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.74, very low-quality evidence). One study reported QoL assessment; the scores did not differ between groups at 30 days after discharge on either QoL scale EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QlQ-OV28 (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that early enteral feeding may lead to a reduced postoperative LoS, however cautious interpretation must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality evidence. For all other outcomes (postoperative complications, mortality, adverse events, and QoL) the findings are inconclusive, and further trials are justified to enhance the understanding of early feeding for these. In this updated review, only a few additional studies have been included, and these were small and of poor quality.To improve the evidence, future trials should address quality issues and focus on clearly defining and measuring postoperative complications to allow for better comparison between studies. However due to the introduction of fast track protocols which already include an early feeding component, future trials may be challenging. A more feasible trial may be to investigate the effect of differing postoperative energy intake regimens on relevant outcomes.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.

A cost management model for hospital food and nutrition in a public hospital

Background

In Chile, the use of costing systems in the public sector is limited. The Ministry of Health requires hospitals to manage themselves with the aim of decentralizing health care services and increasing their quality. However, self-management with a lack of accounting information is almost impossible. On the other hand, nutrition department costs have barely been studied before, and there are no studies specifically for activity based costing (ABC) systems. ABC focuses on the process and traces health care activities to gain a more accurate measurement of the object costs and the financial performance of an organization.

Method

This paper uses ABC in a nutrition unit of a public hospital of high complexity to determine costs associated with the different meals for inpatients. The paper also provides an activity based management (ABM) analysis for this unit.

Results

The results show positive effects on the reduction of costs for the nutrition department after implementing ABC/ABM. Therefore, there are opportunities to improve the profitability of the area and the results could also be replicated to other areas in the hospital. ABC shed light on the amount of nutritionist time devoted to completing paperwork, and as a result, system changes were introduced to reduce this burden and allow them to focus on more relevant activities. Additional efficiencies were achieved through the elimination of non-value adding activities and automation of reports. ABC reduced the cost of the nutrition department and could produce similar results in other areas of the hospital.

Conclusions

This is a practical application of a financial management tool, ABC, which would be useful for hospital managers to reduce costs and improve the management of the unit. This paper takes ABC and examines its use in an area, which has had little exposure to the benefits of this tool.

Impact of enteral feeding protocols on enteral nutrition delivery: results of a multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effect of enteral feeding protocols on key indicators of enteral nutrition in the critical care setting.

METHODS

International, prospective, observational, cohort studies conducted in 2007 and 2008 in 269 intensive care units (ICUs) in 28 countries were combined for the purposes of this analysis. The study included 5497 consecutively enrolled, mechanically ventilated, adult patients who stayed in the ICU for at least 3 days. Sites recorded the presence or absence of a feeding protocol operational in their ICU. They provided selected nutritional data on enrolled patients from ICU admission to ICU discharge for a maximum of 12 days. Sites that used a feeding protocol were compared with those that did not.

RESULTS

On average, protocolized sites used more enteral nutrition (EN) alone (70.4% of patients vs 63.6%, P = .0036), started EN earlier (41.2 hours from admission to ICU vs 57.1, P = .0003), and used more motility agents in patients with high gastric residual volumes (64.3% of patients vs 49.0%, P = .0028) compared with sites that did not use a feeding protocol. Overall nutritional adequacy (61.2% of patients' caloric requirements vs 51.7%, P = .0003) and adequacy from EN were higher in protocolized sites compared with nonprotocolized sites (45.4% of requirements vs 34.7%, P < .0001). EN adequacy remained significantly higher after adjustment for pertinent patient and ICU level baseline characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of an enteral feeding protocol is associated with significant improvements in nutrition practice compared with sites that do not use such a protocol.

Parenteral nutrition in critical illness: can it safely improve outcomes?

Total parenteral nutrition was developed in the 1960s and has since been implemented commonly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Studies published in the 1980s and early 1990s indicate that the use of total parenteral nutrition is associated with increased mortality and infectious morbidity. These detrimental effects were related to hyperglycemia and overnutrition at a period when parenteral nutrition was not administered according to the all-in-one principle. Because of its beneficial effects on the gastrointestinal tract, enteral nutrition alone replaced parenteral nutrition as the gold standard of nutritional care in the ICU in the 1980s. However, enteral nutrition alone is frequently associated with insufficient coverage of the energy requirements, and subsequent protein-energy deficit is correlated with a worse clinical outcome. Recent evidence suggests that all-in-one parenteral nutrition has no significant effect on mortality and infectious morbidity in patients in the ICU if a glycemic control is obtained and hyperalimentation avoided. Thus, the time has come to reconsider the use of parenteral nutrition in the ICU. Supplemental parenteral nutrition could prevent onset of nutritional deficiencies when enteral nutrition is insufficient in meeting energy requirements. Clinical studies are warranted to show that the combination of parenteral and enteral nutrition could improve the clinical outcome of patients in the ICU.

Surgery and transplantation - Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition, Chapter 18

In surgery, indications for artificial nutrition comprise prevention and treatment of catabolism and malnutrition. Thus in general, food intake should not be interrupted postoperatively and the re-establishing of oral (e.g. after anastomosis of the colon and rectum, kidney transplantation) or enteral food intake (e.g. after an anastomosis in the upper gastrointestinal tract, liver transplantation) is recommended within 24 h post surgery. To avoid increased mortality an indication for an immediate postoperatively artificial nutrition (enteral or parenteral nutrition (PN)) also exists in patients with no signs of malnutrition, but who will not receive oral food intake for more than 7 days perioperatively or whose oral food intake does not meet their needs (e.g. less than 60–80%) for more than 14 days. In cases of absolute contraindication for enteral nutrition, there is an indication for total PN (TPN) such as in chronic intestinal obstruction with a relevant passage obstruction e.g. a peritoneal carcinoma. If energy and nutrient requirements cannot be met by oral and enteral intake alone, a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition is indicated. Delaying surgery for a systematic nutrition therapy (enteral and parenteral) is only indicated if severe malnutrition is present. Preoperative nutrition therapy should preferably be conducted prior to hospital admission to lower the risk of nosocomial infections. The recommendations of early postoperative re-establishing oral feeding, generally apply also to paediatric patients. Standardised operative procedures should be established in order to guarantee an effective nutrition therapy.

ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: surgery

In modern surgical practice it is advisable to manage patients within an enhanced recovery protocol and thereby have them eating normal food within 1-3 days. Consequently, there is little room for routine perioperative artificial nutrition. Only a minority of patients may benefit from such therapy. These are predominantly patients who are at risk of developing complications after surgery. The main goals of perioperative nutritional support are to minimize negative protein balance by avoiding starvation, with the purpose of maintaining muscle, immune, and cognitive function and to enhance postoperative recovery. Several studies have demonstrated that 7-10 days of preoperative parenteral nutrition improves postoperative outcome in patients with severe undernutrition who cannot be adequately orally or enterally fed. Conversely, its use in well-nourished or mildly undernourished patients is associated with either no benefit or with increased morbidity. Postoperative parenteral nutrition is recommended in patients who cannot meet their caloric requirements within 7-10 days orally or enterally. In patients who require postoperative artificial nutrition, enteral feeding or a combination of enteral and supplementary parenteral feeding is the first choice. The main consideration when administering fat and carbohydrates in parenteral nutrition is not to overfeed the patient. The commonly used formula of 25 kcal/kg ideal body weight furnishes an approximate estimate of daily energy expenditure and requirements. Under conditions of severe stress requirements may approach 30 kcal/kg ideal body weights. In those patients who are unable to be fed via the enteral route after surgery, and in whom total or near total parenteral nutrition is required, a full range of vitamins and trace elements should be supplemented on a daily basis.

Enteral nutrition and oral nutrition supplements: a review of the economics literature

BACKGROUND

We sought to review the economics literature on enteral nutrition (EN) and oral nutrition supplements (ONS) against the background of an ongoing clinical guideline development.

METHODS

We searched the Health Economic Evaluations Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Enteral vs parenteral nutrition was found to be the most common comparison undertaken. The randomized trial evidence suggests that, in some groups of patients, EN is better in terms of clinical endpoints and/or length of hospital stay. This should translate into a lower mean cost for EN, given the reduced daily cost. These studies should be treated with caution because of their small sample size and poor quality. Costing was often crude and poorly reported, tending to focus on the narrow costs of the nutrition supplements. Only 1 study of a nutrition supplement in the community setting was found.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence to indicate economic advantages of enteral over parenteral nutrition and of immune-enhancing supplements relative to control diet. There is a lack of well-designed studies taking a broad view of relevant comparators, costs, and outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of different forms of nutrition in different patient groups remains to be established.

ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Surgery including organ transplantation

Enhanced recovery of patients after surgery ("ERAS") has become an important focus of perioperative management. From a metabolic and nutritional point of view, the key aspects of perioperative care include: Enteral nutrition (EN) by means of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) and if necessary tube feeding (TF) offers the possibility of increasing or ensuring nutrient intake in cases where food intake is inadequate. These guidelines are intended to give evidence-based recommendations for the use of ONS and TF in surgical patients. They were developed by an interdisciplinary expert group in accordance with officially accepted standards and are based on all relevant publications since 1980. The guideline was discussed and accepted in a consensus conference. EN is indicated even in patients without obvious undernutrition, if it is anticipated that the patient will be unable to eat for more than 7 days perioperatively. It is also indicated in patients who cannot maintain oral intake above 60% of recommended intake for more than 10 days. In these situations nutritional support should be initiated without delay. Delay of surgery for preoperative EN is recommended for patients at severe nutritional risk, defined by the presence of at least one of the following criteria: weight loss >10-15% within 6 months, BMI<18.5 kg/m(2), Subjective Global Assessment Grade C, serum albumin <30 g/l (with no evidence of hepatic or renal dysfunction). Altogether, it is strongly recommended not to wait until severe undernutrition has developed, but to start EN therapy early, as soon as a nutritional risk becomes apparent.

Implementation of a nutrition support protocol increases the proportion of mechanically ventilated patients reaching enteral nutrition targets in the adult intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Despite the evidence that enteral feeding reduces morbidity in critically ill patients and is preferred to parenteral nutrition, the delivery of enteral nutrition (EN) is often inadequate. The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of an evidence-based nutrition support (NS) protocol could improve EN delivery.

METHODS

An NS protocol incorporating available scientific evidence; data from a retrospective survey of 30 intensive care unit (ICU) patients; and input from dietitians, intensive care physicians, surgeons, nurses, and pharmacists was developed. The impact of this protocol was evaluated prospectively in 123 consecutive adult patients admitted to a multisystem ICU who were eligible for EN.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients who received at least 80% of their estimated energy requirements during their ICU stay increased from 20% before implementation of the NS protocol to 60% after implementation (p < .001). After adjusting for confounders, those in the postimplementation group received significantly more kcal/kg/d than the preimplementation group (3.71 kcal/kg/d; 95% confidence interval, 1.64 to 5.78; p = .001). Parenteral nutrition use [corrected] was reduced in the postimplementation group (1.6 vs 13%, p = .02). There was no difference in time to initiation of enteral nutrition between groups (1.76 days preprotocol vs 1.44 days postprotocol implementation, p = .9).

CONCLUSIONS

The development and use of an evidence-based NS protocol improved the proportion of enterally fed ICU patients meeting their calculated nutrition requirements.

Protocols for lung protective ventilation

Protocols have a well-established role in clinical research and are increasingly being used to direct routine clinical care. In this article, we review the differing goals of research and clinical protocols and outline the similar process for their development. We use the mechanical ventilation protocol of the ARDS Network trial comparing small with traditional tidal volumes as an example. As a starting point for debate, we also suggest guiding principles and specific components of a protocol for high-frequency oscillatory ventilation.

The Economic Impact of Early Enteral Feeding in Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Prospective Survey of 51 Consecutive Patients

Early postoperative oral feeding has been demonstrated to be safe and not increase postoperative morbidity. There are conflicting reports about its effect on postoperative length of stay. Some patients will fail attempts at early postoperative feeding and may be relegated to a longer postoperative course. Few studies to date have attempted to identify cost savings associated with early oral support, and those identified address nasoenteric support only. Fifty-one consecutive patients were randomized into either a traditional postoperative feeding group or an early postoperative feeding group after their gastrointestinal surgery. Length of hospital stay, hospital costs (excluding operating room costs), morbidity, and time to tolerance of a diet were compared. There was a tendency toward increased nasogastric tube use in the early feeding arm, but the morbidity rates were similar. Length of hospital stay and costs were similar in both arms. Early postoperative enteral support does not reduce hospital stay, nursing workload, or costs. It may come at a cost of higher nasogastric tube use, however, without an increase in postoperative morbidity.

Gastric decompression and enteral feeding through a double-lumen gastrojejunostomy tube improves outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of inserting a double-lumen gastrojejunostomy tube (GJT) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) and to evaluate associated outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Gastroparesis is a frequent postoperative event following PD. This often necessitates prolonged gastric decompression and nutritional support. A double-lumen GJT may be particularly useful in this situation: gastric decompression may be achieved through the gastric port without a nasogastric tube; enteral feeding may be administered through the jejunal port.

METHODS

Thirty-six patients with periampullary tumors were randomized at the time of PD to insertion of GJT or to the routine care of the operating surgeon. Outcomes, including length of stay, complications, and costs, were followed prospectively.

RESULTS

The 2 groups had similar characteristics. Prolonged gastroparesis occurred in 4 controls (25%) and in none of the patients who had a GJT (P = 0.03). Complication rates were similar in each group. Mean postoperative length of stay was significantly longer in controls compared with patients who had a GJT (15.8 +/- 7.8 days versus 11.5 +/- 2.9 days, respectively; P = 0.01). Hospital charges were 82,151 +/- 56,632 dollars in controls and 52,589 +/- 15,964 dollars in the GJT group (P = 0.036).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PD, insertion of a GJT is safe. Moreover, insertion of a GJT improves average length of stay. At the time of resection of periampullary tumors, GJT insertion should be considered, especially given this is a patient population in which weight loss and cachexia are frequent.

Early enteral supply of fiber and Lactobacilli versus conventional nutrition: a controlled trial in patients with major abdominal surgery

OBJECTIVE

Early enteral nutrition with fiber-containing solutions plus Lactobacillus may reduce bacterial translocation and minimize the incidence of infections after surgery.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized trial in three groups (n = 30/group) of patients after major abdominal surgery, we compared our previous regimen with parenteral nutrition or fiber-free enteral nutrition (group A) with enteral fiber-containing nutrition with living Lactobacillus (group B) and heat-killed Lactobacillus (group C). The main endpoint was the development of bacterial infection. Other analyzed parameters were the durations of antibiotic therapy and hospital stay, non-infectious complications, side effects of the nutrition, and onset of bowel movement. Routine parameters, nutritional parameters, and cellular immune status in the blood were measured preoperatively and on 1, 5, and 10 d postoperatively.

RESULTS

The incidence of infections was significantly lower (P = 0.01) in groups B and C with enteral nutrition containing fibers (10% each) than in group A (30%). Patients in group B received antibiotics for a significantly shorter time (P = 0.04) than did the patients in groups A and C. The length of hospital stay and the incidence of non-infectious complications did not differ significantly. Fibers and lactobacilli were well tolerated. There were no general benefits of living Lactobacillus as opposed to heat-killed Lactobacillus in the entire study population, but benefits were observed in the patients with gastric and pancreas resections, although no statistical analysis was done due to their small numbers.

CONCLUSIONS

Early enteral nutrition with fiber-containing solutions reduced the rate of postoperative infections in comparison with parenteral nutrition and fiber-free enteral formula. Addition of living Lactobacillus seemed to increase the benefits in patients with gastric and pancreatic resections.

A systematic audit of economic evidence linking nosocomial infections and infection control interventions: 1990-2000

BACKGROUND

Nosocomial infections (NIs) are a serious patient safety issue. Infection control personnel are responsible for implementing interventions to reduce this risk. The purpose of this systematic review was to audit the published economic evidence of the attributable cost of NIs and interventions conducted by infection control professionals and to evaluate the methods used. Economic evaluation methodology and recommendations for standardization are reviewed.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and HealthSTAR with medical subject headings or text words "nosocomial infections," "infection control," or "hospital acquired infections" cross-referenced with "costs," "cost analysis," "economics," or "cost-effectiveness analysis" was conducted. Published review articles were also searched. Inclusion criteria included articles published between 1990 and 2000 that contained an abstract and original cost estimate and were written in English. Results were standardized into a common currency.

RESULTS

Fifty-five studies were eligible. Approximately one quarter examined NIs in intensive care patients (n = 13). Most studies were conducted from the hospital perspective (n = 48). The costs attributable to bloodstream (mean = $38,703) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections (mean = $35,367) were the largest.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased standardization and rigor are needed. Clinicians should partner with economists and policy analysts to expand and improve the economic evidence available to reduce hospital complications such as NI and other adverse patient/staff outcomes.

Special feature: exploring the benefits and myths of enteral feeding in the critically ill

Patients in the intensive care unit setting have been nutritionally deprived for various reasons. Many patients who are critically ill cannot absorb nourishment by traditional routes. Enteral feeding should be considered for all patients who cannot meet caloric needs. There are many benefits to enteral feeding such as decreased infection, rapid wound healing, and decreased length of stay and mortality. Many critical care nurses subscribe to myths for not feeding their patients. The myths for not feeding critically ill patients involve gut motility, feeding residuals, and patient positioning. There is significant evidence both to support nutrition as integral to recovery from a critical illness and to suggest that enteral feeding is efficient and effective at providing nutrition.

Bedside placement of postpyloric feeding tubes

Postpyloric placement of feeding tubes into the duodenum or jejunum is often recommended to support early feeding, improve tolerance of enteral nutrition, and decrease the risk of aspiration pneumonia. Achieving small bowel feeding tube placement can be a difficult, time-consuming, and costly process that may delay the initiation of enteral nutrition. Various bedside techniques, including air insufflation, pH assisted, and spontaneous passage with or without motility agents are available to facilitate transpyloric feeding tube passage. A discussion of these methods is presented in this article, including a hospital-based quality initiative project designed to facilitate early enteral nutrition.