The role of the enteral route and the composition of feeds in the nutritional support of malnourished surgical patients

Enteral Nutrition Therapy: Historical Perspective, Utilization, and Complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy can provide vital nutrition support for patients with various medical conditions as long as it is indicated and supported by ethical reasoning. This review seeks to offer a detailed account of the history of EN development, highlighting key milestones and recent advances in the field. Additionally, it covers common complications associated with EN and their management.

RECENT FINDINGS

After years of research and development, we have reached newer generations of enteral feeding formulations, more options for enteral tubes and connectors, and a better understanding of EN therapy challenges. Given the availability of many different formulas, selecting a feeding formula with the best evidence for specific indications for enteral feeding is recommended. Initiation of enteral feeding with standard polymeric formula remains the standard of care. Transition to small-bore connectors remains suboptimal. Evidence-based practices should be followed to recognize and reduce possible enteral feeding complications early.

Effects of nutritional support on the clinical outcomes of well-nourished patients with cancer: a meta-analysis

The effects of nutritional support on well-nourished patients have been investigated, but the results were inconsistent among different articles. We performed the meta-analysis to examine the existing evidence. We systematically retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library to identify the evidence of nutritional support for well-nourished patients. Methodological quality assessment was assessed based on the Cochrane Handbook and GRADE. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-RCT with 1400 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Nutritional support, particularly immunonutrition, was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative infectious complications (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.96), and a decreasing trends in morbidity and the length of the hospital stay (LOS) were observed. However, the mortality rates were comparable between two groups. The quality of evidence was moderate to high. Nutritional support, particularly immunonutrition supplementation, is likely to reduce infectious complications, morbidity and LOS without influencing mortality and may be a safe and preferred choice for well-nourished patients undergoing surgery for cancer. However, additional RCTs are warranted to determine the effects of nutritional support on well-nourished patients.

The Impact of Postoperative Enteral Immunonutrition on Postoperative Complications and Survival in Gastric Cancer Patients - Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Immunomodulating enteral nutrition in the perioperative period may reduce postoperative complications in cancer patients. Little is known if this effect translates to the better survival. The aim of study was to assess the impact of postoperative immunomodulating enteral nutrition on postoperative complications and survival of gastric cancer patients.

METHODS

A group of 98 gastric cancer patients was randomly assigned for postoperative immunomodulating enteral nutrition n = 44 (Reconvan, Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany), or standard enteral nutrition n = 54 (Peptisorb, Nutricia, Schipol, The Netherlands). Postoperative complications, mortality, 6-mo and 1-yr survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

The overall postoperative morbidity did not differ between the groups. The rate of pulmonary complications (excluding pneumonia) was significantly lower in immunomodulation group (0% vs 9.3%, p = 0.044), as well as 60-day mortality (0% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.037). There was no difference in 6-mo and 1-yr survival between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative immunomodulating enteral nutrition may reduce respiratory complications and postoperative mortality in comparison to standard enteral nutrition. Despite this effect, it did not improve 6-mo and 1-yr survival in immunomodulation group. Probably the beneficial effect of immunomodulating enteral nutrition is too weak to be significant in such a number of patients.

Preoperative nutritional support in cancer patients with no clinical signs of malnutrition--prospective randomized controlled trial

Purpose

Preoperative nutrition is beneficial for malnourished cancer patients. Yet, there is little evidence whether or not it should be given to nonmalnourished patients. The aim of this study was to assess the need to introduce preoperative nutritional support in patients without malnutrition at qualification for surgery.

Methods

This was a prospective, two-arm, randomized, controlled, open-label study. Patients in interventional group received nutritional supplementation for 14 days before surgery, while control group kept on to their everyday diet. Each patient’s nutritional status was assessed twice—at qualification (weight loss in 6 months, laboratory parameters: albumin, total protein, transferrin, and total lymphocyte count) and 1 day before surgery (change in body weight and laboratory parameters). After surgery, all patients were followed up for 30 days for postoperative complications.

Results

Fifty-four patients in interventional and 48 in control group were analyzed. In postoperative period, patients in control group suffered from significantly higher (p < 0.001) number of serious complications compared with patients receiving nutritional supplementation. Moreover, levels of all laboratory parameters declined significantly (p < 0.001) in these patients, while in interventional arm were stable (albumin and total protein) or raised (transferrin and total lymphocyte count).

Conclusions

Preoperative nutritional support should be introduced for nonmalnourished patients as it helps to maintain proper nutritional status and reduce number and severity of postoperative complications compared with patients without such support.

A review of feeding methods used in the treatment of anorexia nervosa

BACKGROUND

Clear evidence based guidelines on the best and safest method of achieving and maintaining normal body weight during inpatient treatment of Anorexia Nervosa (AN) are currently not available. Oral feeding with food alone, high-energy liquid supplements, nasogastric feeding and parenteral nutrition all have the potential to achieve weight gain in the treatment of AN but the advantages and disadvantages of each method have not been comprehensively evaluated. A literature search was undertaken to identify papers describing feeding methods used during inpatient treatment of AN. The selection criteria searched for papers that described the feeding method; and reported weight change variables such as admission and discharge weight in kilograms, or Body Mass Index; or weight change over the course of inpatient treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-six papers were identified, describing a total of 37 samples with a mean sample size of 58.9 participants, and a range from 6 to 318. The majority (84.6%) of papers were observational cohorts and retrospective chart reviews. The most common feeding method described was nasogastric feeding and food, then high-energy liquid supplements and food.

CONCLUSIONS

There is limited evidence on the efficacy of feeding methods used in the refeeding and nutritional rehabilitation of AN, therefore no conclusion can be made about the most effective method of achieving weight gain during inpatient treatment. While there are a number of papers exploring this issue there is no consistency in the way the information is reported to enable comparisons between the different methods. There is an urgent need for research in this area to guide decision-making in the inpatient management, refeeding and nutritional rehabilitation of AN.