Fettemulsionen in der parenteralen Ernährung nach Lebertransplantation

Nutritional interventions for liver-transplanted patients

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is a common problem for patients waiting for orthotopic liver transplantation and a risk factor for post-transplant morbidity. The decision to initiate enteral or parenteral nutrition, to which patients and at which time, is still debated. The effects of nutritional supplements given before or after liver transplantation, or both, still remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition as well as oral nutritional supplements administered to patients before and after liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2 of 12, 2012) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2012), Science Citation Index Expanded (January 1900 to March 2012), Social Science Citation Index (January 1961 to October 2010), and reference lists of articles. Manufacturers and experts in the field have also been contacted and relevant journals and conference proceedings were handsearched (from 1997 to October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials of parallel or cross-over design evaluating the beneficial or harmful effects of enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements for patients before and after liver transplantation were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the trials and extracted data. Dichotomous data were reported as odds ratios (OR) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity of included interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Four publications did not report outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol, or other clinically relevant outcomes and additional data could not be obtained. Nine trials could provide data for the review. Most of the 13 included trials were small and at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not possible due to clinical heterogeneity of the interventions.No interventions that were likely to be beneficial were identified.For interventions of unknown effectiveness,postoperative enteral nutrition compared with postoperative parenteral nutrition seemed to have no beneficial or harmful effects on clinical outcomes. Parenteral nutrition containing protein, fat, carbohydrates, and branched-chain amino acids with or without alanyl-glutamine seemed to have no beneficial effect on the outcomes of one and three years survival when compared with a solution of 5% dextrose and normal saline. Enteral immunonutrition with Supportan® seemed to have no effect on occurrence of immunological rejection when compared with enteral nutrition with Fresubin®.There is weak evidence that, compared with standard dietary advice, adding a nutritional supplement to usual diet for patients during the waiting time for liver transplantation had an effect on clinical outcomes after liver transplantation. The combination of enteral nutrition plus parenteral nutrition plus glutamine-dipeptide seemed to be beneficial in reducing length of hospital stay after liver transplantation compared with standard parenteral nutrition (mean difference (MD) -12.20 days; 95% CI -20.20 to -4.00). There is weak evidence that the use of parenteral nutrition plus branched-chain amino acids had an effect on clinical outcomes compared with standard parenteral nutrition, but each was beneficial in reducing length of stay in intensive care unit compared to a standard glucose solution (MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.29 to -0.51 and MD -2.20 days; 95% CI -3.79 to -0.61). There is weak evidence that adding omega-3 fish oil to parenteral nutrition reduced the length of hospital stay after liver transplantation (mean difference -7.1 days; 95% CI -13.02 to -1.18) and the length of stay in intensive care unit after liver transplantation (MD -1.9 days; 95% CI -1.9 to -0.22).For interventions unlikely to be beneficial, there is a significant increased risk in acute rejections in malnourished patients with a history of encephalopathy and treated with the nutritional supplement Ensure® compared with usual diet only (MD 0.70 events per patient; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to identify nutritional interventions for liver transplanted patients that seemed to offer convincing benefits. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and powerful sample sizes are needed.

Improvement of graft function and animal survival by fat emulsion in liver transplant rats

Nutritional supports are required for liver transplant patients. However, no systematical assessment has been made of the optimal composition of energy yielding substrates in these patients. This study is to evaluate whether mixed energy system consisting of carbohydrate and lipid emulsions is more advantageous over single energy source of glucose for nutritional support in liver transplant recipients and whether structured lipid emulsion (STG) is superior to medium-chain triglyceride/long-chain triglycerides (MCT/LCT) and long-chain triglycerides (LCT) using a total parenteral nutrition model. Liver transplant rats were randomly divided to four groups according to the energy source, i.e. glucose (GLU), MCT/LCT, STG and LCT groups. Sham operated rats served as control. Hepatic function and lipid profile were determined to investigate the roles of lipid emulsion in hepatic function and lipid metabolism. Morphological changes of liver were observed, and nitrogen balance was determined. The results showed that infusion of lipid emulsion was well tolerated. The 1-week survival rate in the lipid emulsion groups was significantly higher than in the GLU group (100% versus 50%, P<0.05); compared with the GLU group, hepatic function recovered quickly and returned to normal level, and morphological alterations were less severer in the lipid emulsion groups, especially in the STG group; the lipid emulsions groups had normal serum TG and TC levels, especially STG and MCT/LCT groups; the lipid emulsions groups achieved a positive nitrogen balance on day 7 compared with the GLU group, and the STG group had the highest nitrogen balance. In conclusion, lipid emulsion is beneficial in improving hepatic function and the recipients' survival and does not influence the lipid metabolism. Mixed energy system consisting of carbohydrate and lipid is more advantageous over single energy source of glucose after liver transplantation, and STG is superior to MCT/LCT and LCT.