Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in the conservative treatment of upper gastrointestinal fistula after surgery: a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase III study (NUTRILEAK study)

Postoperative nutritional support after pancreaticoduodenectomy in adults

BACKGROUND

Resection of the head of the pancreas is most commonly done by a pancreaticoduodenectomy, known as a Whipple procedure. The most common indication for pancreaticoduodenectomy is malignancy, but can include benign tumours and chronic pancreatitis. Complete surgical resection, with negative margins, provides the best prospect of long-term survival. Pancreaticoduodenectomy involves specific and unique alterations to the digestive system and maintaining nutritional status (optimising outcomes and achieving resumption of a normal diet) in patients with cancer after major surgery is a challenge. Malnutrition is a risk factor following pancreaticoduodenectomy, due to the magnitude of the operation and the frequency of complications. Postoperatively, patients are fed either orally, enterally or parenterally. Oral intake may start with fluids and then progress to solid food, or may be ad libitum. Enteral feeding may be via a nasojejunal tube or feeding tube jejunostomy. Parenteral nutrition can be delivered via a central or peripheral intravenous line, and may provide full nutrition (TPN) or partial nutrition (supplemental PN).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of postoperative nutritional support strategies on complications and recovery in adults after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and CINAHL (from inception to October 2022), ongoing trials registers and other internet databases. We searched previous systematic reviews, relevant publications on the same topic and the references of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of postoperative nutritional interventions in an inpatient setting for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. We specifically looked for studies comparing route or timing rather than nutritional content.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, judged the risk of bias and extracted data. Studies requiring translation were assessed for inclusion, risk of bias and data extraction by an external translator and another author. We used GRADE to evaluate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies (1897 participants). Of these, eight studies could be included in a meta-analysis. The route, timing and target of nutritional support varied widely between studies. Enteral feeding (jejunostomy, nasojejunal or gastrojejunostomy) was used in at least 13 studies (one study did not specify the method of enteral route), parenteral nutrition (PN) was used in at least 10 studies (two studies had a control of 'surgeon's preference' and no further details were given) and oral intake was used in seven studies. Overall, the evidence presented in this review is of low to very low certainty. Four studies compared jejunostomy feeding with total parenteral nutrition. When we pooled these four studies, the evidence demonstrated that jejunostomy likely results in a reduced length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) -1.61 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.31 to -0.92; 3 studies, 316 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence suggested that there may be no difference in postoperative pancreatic fistula (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.47; 4 studies, 346 participants; low-certainty evidence) and that there may be no difference in delayed gastric emptying (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.50; 2 studies, 270 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or post pancreatectomy haemorrhage (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.29; 2 studies, 270 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is uncertain. There were no data for major and minor complications defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification. Two studies compared nasojejunal feeding with total parenteral nutrition. When the two studies were pooled, the evidence suggested that there may be little to no difference between nasojejunal feeding and TPN in the length of hospital stay (MD 1.07 days, 95% CI -2.64 to 4.79; 2 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence), delayed gastric emptying (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.91; 2 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence) or post pancreatectomy haemorrhage (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.62; 2 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). TPN may slightly improve rates of clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.74; 2 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on major complications (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.94; very low-certainty evidence) and minor complications (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.50; 204 participants; very low-certainty evidence) defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification and there may be little to no difference in effect, but the evidence is uncertain. Two studies compared jejunostomy feeding with oral intake. Of note, one of the studies used a modified surgical technique as part of the intervention. We pooled these studies and found that there may be little to no difference in the length of hospital stay (MD -1.99 days, 95% CI -4.90 to 0.91; 2 studies, 301 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or delayed gastric emptying (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.88; 2 studies, 307 participants; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported on major complications (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.34; 247 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and minor complications (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.15; 247 participants; very low-certainty evidence) defined by the Clavien-Dindo classification, postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.50; 247 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and post pancreatectomy haemorrhage (RR 2.02, 95% CI 0.52 to 7.88; 247 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and there may be little to no difference in effect on these outcomes, but the evidence is uncertain. No difference in mortality was detected in any of the analyses (Clavien-Dindo Grade V) (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When compared with parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition by jejunostomy likely results in a decreased length of hospital stay and may lead to no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications. When compared with parenteral nutrition, enteral feeding by nasojejunal tube may result in no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications or length of hospital stay. When compared with oral nutrition, enteral nutrition by jejunostomy feeding may result in no difference in the incidence of postoperative complications or length of hospital stay, but the evidence is very uncertain. Further high-quality research is required and there are several ongoing studies. Given the number of different nutritional interventions available in the postoperative setting, a network meta-analysis would be more appropriate in future.

Construction and validation of a predictive model for the risk of three-month-postoperative malnutrition in patients with gastric cancer: a retrospective case-control study

Background

This study analyzed both the influencing factors of malnutrition in patients with gastric cancer and established a multi-dimensional risk model to predict postoperative malnutrition three months after surgery.

Methods

The clinical data of gastric cancer patients hospitalized for the first time and receiving laparoscopic surgery in the general surgery department of our hospital were retrospectively analyzed through the hospital information system and divided into a training set and a validation set in the ratio of 7:3. Nutritional status was assessed using the Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment scale and follow-up records three months after surgery. Patients were divided into a non-malnutrition group and a malnutrition group, and a risk prediction model was established and displayed in the form of a nomogram.

Results

A total of 344 patients were included, with 242 in the training and 102 in the validation set. Tumor node metastasis stage (TNM Stage, P=0.020), cardiac function grading (CFG, P=0.013), prealbumin (PAB, P<0.001), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR, P=0.027), and enteral nutrition within 48 hours post-operation (EN 48 h post-op, P=0.025) were independent risk factors. We established a prediction model with the above variables and displayed it via a nomogram, then verified its effectiveness through internal and external verification. This revealed a C-index of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.79-0.89), and the area under curve (AUC) areas of 0.840 (training set) and 0.854 (validation set), which was better than the nutritional risk screening 2002 (NRS2002) scale. The calibration curve brier scores were 0.159 and 0.195, and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test chi-square values were 14.070 and 1.989 (P>0.05). The decision curve analysis (DCA) of the training set model indicated the clinical applicability was good and within the threshold probability range of 10%-85%, which was also better than NRS2002.

Conclusions

A clinical prediction model including multi-dimensional variables was established based on independent risk factors of malnutrition three months after gastrectomy in patients with gastric cancer. The model yields greater prediction accuracy of the risk of three-month-postoperative malnutrition in patients with gastric cancer, helps screen high-risk patients, formulates targeted nutritional prescriptions early, and improves the overall prognosis of patients.

Nutritional Management of Patients With Enterocutaneous Fistulas: Practice and Progression

The management of enterocutaneous fistulas (ECF) can be challenging because of massive fluid loss, which can lead to electrolyte imbalance, severe dehydration, malnutrition and sepsis. Nutritional support plays a key role in the management and successful closure of ECF. The principle of nutritional support for patients with ECF should be giving enteral nutrition (EN) priority, supplemented by parenteral nutrition if necessary. Although total parenteral nutrition (TPN) may be indicated, use of enteral feeding should be advocated as early as possible if patients are tolerant to it, which can protect gut mucosal barrier and prevent bacterial translocation. A variety of methods of enteral nutrition have been developed such as fistuloclysis and relay perfusion. ECF can also be occluded by special devices and then EN can be implemented, including fibrin glue application, Over-The-Scope Clip placement and three-dimensional (3D)-printed patient-personalized fistula stent implantation. However, those above should not be conducted in acute fistulas, because tissues are edematous and perforation could easily occur.