Impact of Early Oral Feeding on Nasogastric Tube Reinsertion After Elective Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Colorectal cancer is a common malignant tumor appearing in the gastrointestinal tract. Surgical resection is recognized as the best means to improve patient survival. However, it is controversial whether early oral feeding (EOF) after elective colorectal resection demonstrates safety and efficacy in concerned clinical outcomes.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to September 2021. Two authors independently screened the retrieved records and extracted data. EOF was defined as feeding within 24 h after surgery, while traditional oral feeding (TOF) was defined as feeding that started after the gastrointestinal flatus or ileus was resolved. The primary outcome was nasogastric tube insertion, and the secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay and total complications. Categorical data were combined using odds ratio (OR), and continuous data were combined using mean difference (MD).

Results

We screened 10 studies from 34 records after full-text reading, with 1,199 patients included in the analysis. Nasogastric tube reinsertion (OR 1.69; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.64, p=0.02) was more frequent in the EOF group, and older ages (>60 years) were associated with higher risk of nasogastric tube reinsertion (OR 2.05; 95% CI 1.05 to 3.99, p = 0.04). Reduced length of hospital stay (MD −1.76; 95% CI −2.32 to −1.21; p < 0.01) and the rate of total complications (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.65, p < 0.01) were observed in EOF compared with TOF.

Conclusions

EOF was safe and effective for patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery, but the higher rate of nasogastric tube reinsertion compared with TOF should not be ignored.

ESPEN guideline on hospital nutrition

In hospitals through Europe and worldwide, the practices regarding hospital diets are very heterogeneous. Hospital diets are rarely prescribed by physicians, and sometimes the choices of diets are based on arbitrary reasons. Often prescriptions are made independently from the evaluation of nutritional status, and without taking into account the nutritional status. Therapeutic diets (low salt, gluten-free, texture and consistency modified, …) are associated with decreased energy delivery (i.e. underfeeding) and increased risk of malnutrition. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) proposes here evidence-based recommendations regarding the organization of food catering, the prescriptions and indications of diets, as well as monitoring of food intake at hospital, rehabilitation center, and nursing home, all of these by taking into account the patient perspectives. We propose a systematic approach to adapt the hospital food to the nutritional status and potential food allergy or intolerances. Particular conditions such as patients with dysphagia, older patients, gastrointestinal diseases, abdominal surgery, diabetes, and obesity, are discussed to guide the practitioner toward the best evidence based therapy. The terminology of the different useful diets is defined. The general objectives are to increase the awareness of physicians, dietitians, nurses, kitchen managers, and stakeholders towards the pivotal role of hospital food in hospital care, to contribute to patient safety within nutritional care, to improve coverage of nutritional needs by hospital food, and reduce the risk of malnutrition and its related complications.

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.

Effect of Early vs Late Start of Oral Intake on Anastomotic Leakage Following Elective Lower Intestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Experimental and clinical studies have demonstrated a beneficial effect of early enteral nutrition (EN) on anastomotic leakage following colorectal surgery. Early oral intake is a common form of early EN with various clinical benefits, but the effect on anastomotic leakage is unclear. This systematic review investigates the effect of early vs late start of oral intake on anastomotic leakage following lower intestinal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials were included that compared early (within 24 hours) vs late start of oral intake following elective surgery of the small bowel, colon, or rectum. Meta-analysis was performed for anastomotic leakage, overall complications, length of stay, and mortality. Sensitivity analysis was performed in which studies of inferior methodological quality were excluded.

RESULTS

Nine studies including 879 patients met eligibility criteria. Early start of oral intake significantly reduced overall complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.93; P = .02), length of stay (mean difference, -0.89; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.57; P < .001), and anastomotic leakage (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.95; P = .04) compared with late start of oral intake. However, in the sensitivity analysis only the overall reduction of length of stay remained significant.

CONCLUSION

The effect of early oral intake on anastomotic leakage is unclear as existing studies are heterogeneous and at risk of bias. High-quality studies are needed to study the potential benefit of EN on anastomotic healing.

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.

[Guidelines for enhanced recovery after elective colorectal surgery]

Early recovery after surgery provides patients with all means to counteract or minimize the deleterious effects of surgery. This concept is suitable for a surgical procedure (e.g., colorectal surgery) and comes in the form of a clinical pathway that covers three periods (pre-, intra- and postoperative). The purpose of this Expert panel guideline is firstly to assess the impact of each parameter usually included in the rehabilitation programs on 6 foreseeable consequences of colorectal surgery: surgical stress, postoperative ileus, water and energy imbalance, postoperative immobility, sleep alterations and postoperative complications; secondly, to validate the usefulness of each as criteria of efficiency criteria for success of rehabilitation programs. Two main criteria were selected to evaluate the impact of each parameter: the length of stay and frequency of postoperative complications. Lack of information in the literature forced experts to assess some parameters with criteria (duration of postoperative ileus or quality of analgesia) that mainly surrogate a positive impact for the implementation of an early recovery program. After literature analysis, 19 parameters were identified as potentially interfering with at least one of the foreseeable consequences of colorectal surgery. GRADE® methodology was applied to determine a level of evidence and strength of recommendation. After synthesis of the work of experts using GRADE® method on 19 parameters, 35 recommendations were produced by the organizing committee. The recommendations were submitted and amended by a group of reviewers. After three rounds of Delphi quotes, strong agreement was obtained for 28 recommendations (80%) and weak agreement for seven recommendations. A consensus was reached among anesthesiologists and surgeons on a number of approaches that are likely not sufficiently applied for rehabilitation programs in colorectal surgery such as: preoperative intake of carbohydrates; intraoperative hemodynamic optimization; oral feeding resume before ha24; gum chewing after surgery; patient out of bed and walking at D1. The panel also clarified the value and place of such approaches such as: patient information; preoperative immunonutrition; laparoscopic surgery; antibiotic prophylaxis; prevention of hypothermia; systematic prevention of nausea and vomiting; morphine-sparing analgesic techniques; indications and techniques for bladder catheterization. The panel also confirmed the futility of approaches such as: bowel preparation for colon surgery; maintain of the nasogastric tube; surgical drainage for colonic surgery.

Early oral feeding vs. traditional feeding in patients undergoing elective open bowel surgery-a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the safety, tolerability and outcome of early oral feeding vs. traditional feeding in patients undergoing elective open bowel surgery.

METHODS

A total of 120 consecutive patients who underwent elective open bowel surgeries were randomized into either early feeding (n = 60) or traditional feeding group (n = 60). Patients in the early feeding group were started on oral fluids on post-operative day 1, while those in the traditional feeding group were started orals after the resolution of ileus. Patient characteristics, surgical procedures, co-morbidity, first flatus, first defecation, time of starting solid diet, complications and length of hospitalization were assessed between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups were similar in demographic and baseline data. The number of days to first flatus (p < 0.0001), first defecation (p < 0.0001), length of post-operative stay (p = 0.011) and time of starting solid diet (p < 0.0001) were significantly earlier in the early feeding group. Anastomotic leak, wound infection, fever, vomiting, abdominal distention and other complications were similar. Multivariate analysis showed that patients in the early oral feeding group were discharged 3.4 days earlier (p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing elective open bowel surgeries, early post-operative feeding is safe, is well tolerated and reduces the length of hospitalization.

Early versus traditional postoperative feeding in patients undergoing resectional gastrointestinal surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A meta-analysis evaluating surgical outcomes following nutritional provision provided proximal to the anastomosis within 24 hours of gastrointestinal surgery compared with traditional postoperative management was conducted.

METHODS

Databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of early and traditional postoperative feeding. Trials involving gastrointestinal tract resection followed by patients receiving nutritionally significant oral or enteral intake within 24 hours after surgery were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies involving a total of 1240 patients were analyzed. A statistically significant reduction (45%) in relative odds of total postoperative complications was seen in patients receiving early postoperative feeding (odds ratio [OR] 0.55; confidence interval [CI], 0.35 -0.87, P = .01). No effect of early feeding was seen with relation to anastomotic dehiscence (OR 0.75; CI, 0.39-1.4, P = .39), mortality (OR 0.71; CI, 0.32-1.56, P = .39), days to passage of flatus (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.42; CI, -1.12 to 0.28, P = .23), first bowel motion (WMD -0.28; CI, -1.20 to 0.64, P = .55), or reduced length of stay (WMD -1.28; CI, -2.94 to 0.38, P = .13); however, the direction of clinical outcomes favored early feeding. Nasogastric tube reinsertion was less common in traditional feeding interventions (OR 1.48; CI, 0.93-2.35, P = .10).

CONCLUSIONS

Early postoperative nutrition is associated with significant reductions in total complications compared with traditional postoperative feeding practices and does not negatively affect outcomes such as mortality, anastomotic dehiscence, resumption of bowel function, or hospital length of stay.

Feeding after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in children: early feeding trial

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous endoscopic placement of a gastrostomy tube is a common procedure to provide feeding access in children. The practice has been to withhold the initial feeding for a prescribed length of time because of safety concerns. The shortest reported time to feeding in pediatric patients is 6 hours.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized trial was devised to compare the tolerance of feedings at 3 and 6 hours after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. The change in abdominal girth before and 1 hour after the initial feeding, any vomiting, and the gastric residual volume before the next feeding were recorded. The length of stay was also documented.

RESULTS

Forty successive patients who met the entry criteria were enrolled, with 20 in each group. There were no statistical differences between the groups for age or sex distribution. There were no significant differences in the recorded episodes of emesis from either group (median value 0 in both groups, P = 0.82). The changes in abdominal girths were also similar and statistically not significantly different (median values 0 for 3 hours vs 0.5 cm for 6 hours, P = 0.29). Gastric residual volumes were low overall and not different depending on the time that feedings were started (median value 0 in both groups, P = 0.47). The length of stay was statistically the same between the 3- and 6-hour feeding groups (median values 30.7 hours for 3 hours vs 30.0 hours for 6 hours, P = 0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Feedings after percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement can be started as soon as 3 hours after the procedure is completed with no increase in complications.

Early enteral nutrition within 24h of colorectal surgery versus later commencement of feeding for postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

The role of early postoperative enteral nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery is controversial. Traditional management consist of 'nil by mouth', where patients receive fluids followed by solids when tolerated. Although several trials have implicated lower incidence of septic complications and faster wound healing upon early enteral feeding, other trials have shown opposite results. The immediate advantage of caloric intake could be a faster recovery with fewer complications, to be evaluated systematically.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether early commencement of postoperative enteral nutrition compared to traditional management (no nutritional supply) is associated with fewer complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PUBMED, EMBASE, and LILACS from 1979 (first RCT published) to March 2006. We manually scanned the references from the relevant articles, and consulted primary authors for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCT's) comparing early commencement of feeding (within 24 hours) with no feeding in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Early enteral nutrition is defined as all oral intakes (i.e. registered oral intake, supplemented oral feeding) and any kind of tube feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal) containing caloric content. No feeding is traditional management, defined as none caloric oral intake or any kind of tube feeding before bowel function. The definition 'no nutrition' includes non caloric placebo and water.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The three authors independently assessed the identified trials, and extracted the relevant data using a specifically developed data extraction sheet. Primary end points of interest were: Wound infections and intraabdominal abscesses, postoperative complications such as acute myocardial infarction, postoperative thrombosis or pneumonia, anastomotic leakages, mortality, length of hospital stay, and significant adverse effects. We combined data to estimate the common relative risk of postoperative complications, and calculated the associated 95% confidence intervals. For analysis, we used fixed effects model (risk ratios to summarise the treatment effect) whenever feasible. The treatment effect on length of stay was estimated using effect size (presented as mean +/- SD). Some outcomes were not analysed but presented in a descriptive way. We used a random effects model to estimate overall risk ratio and effect size.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified thirteen randomised controlled trials, with a total of 1173 patients, all undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. Individual clinical complications failed to reach statistical significance, but the direction of effect indicates that earlier feeding may reduce the risk of post surgical complications. Mortality was the only outcome showing a significant benefit, but not necessarily associated with early commencement of feeding, as the reported cause of death was anastomotic leakage, reoperation, and acute myocardial infarction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Although non-significant results, there is no obvious advantage in keeping patients 'nil by mouth' following gastrointestinal surgery, and this review support the notion on early commencement of enteral feeding.

Evidence for early oral feeding of patients after elective open colorectal surgery: a literature review

AIM

To review research on early oral feeding following elective, open colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND

Fasting following gastrointestinal surgery is a traditional surgical practice, based on fears of causing postoperative complications if oral intake begins before bowel function returns, but fasting following elective surgery is questionable as a best practice.

METHODS

Searches in Journals@Ovid CINAHL, MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library for primary studies, published during 1995-2004, used the keywords: 'surgery', 'postoperative', 'elective, 'colorectal', 'bowel, 'colon', 'oral', 'enteral', 'feeding', 'early', 'traditional'. Studies of adults undergoing elective, open colorectal surgery who were allowed fluids and food before bowel function returned (early feeding) were included. Outcomes of interest were safety, tolerability, duration of gastrointestinal ileus and length of hospital stay. Critical appraisal of randomized and controlled studies was undertaken following inclusion.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies comprising 1352 patients were reviewed. All studies concluded early feeding was safe, based on complications rates. Total complications were 12.5% (range 0-25%) for 935 early feeding patients, with no increased risk of anastomotic leak, aspiration pneumonia, or bowel obstruction. For all studies an average of 86% patients (range 73-100%) tolerated early feeding. Studies demonstrating faster resolution of postoperative ileus or shorter hospitalization were associated with multimodal perioperative care, including early mobilization, epidural analgesia and comprehensive patient education. Appraisal of five randomized trials revealed no blinding and inadequate randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

This review supports early oral feeding after elective, open colorectal surgery and challenges the traditional practice of fasting patients until return of bowel function. Early feeding was safe, well-tolerated and easy to implement. Reduced length of ileus and shorter hospitalization may occur with multimodal protocols.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Nurses can highlight this new evidence for other health professionals, advocate development of clinical protocols featuring early feeding and participate in multi-disciplinary, multi-method research regarding benefits of early feeding.