Effects of intragastric and intravenous glucose on restraint model of stress ulceration

Early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Controversy persists about whether early enteral nutrition administration is related to worse prognosis than delayed enteral nutrition for patients with gastrointestinal bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate the effect of early enteral nutrition on the patient with gastrointestinal bleeding through the meta-analysis.

METHODS

Such electronic databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and CBM were searched from 1985 to March 2018. Randomized controlled trials that compared early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding were considered eligible. Data extraction and the methodological quality assessment of the included trials were carried out according to the Cochrane Handbook. We calculated the pooled risk ratio, weighted mean difference, and the corresponding 95% confidential interval using RevMan5.3.

RESULT

A total of 5 trials involving 313 patients were included. Compared with delayed enteral nutrition, there was a tendency for a decreased rebleeding rate in the early enteral nutrition group, but the trend was not statistically significant (risk ratio = 0.75, 95% confidential interval: 0.34-1.64, I = 0). As for mortality within 30 days, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (risk ratio = 0.74, 95% confidential interval: 0.23-2.39, I = 0). In addition, the pooled analysis showed that early enteral nutrition was related to reduced hospitalized days (weighted mean difference = -1.69, 95% confidential interval: -2.15 to -1.23; I = 27%) CONCLUSION:: For patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, early enteral nutrition within 24 hours does not result in the significantly higher risk of rebleeding and mortality compared with delayed enteral nutrition, but decrease hospitalized days. Patients who are at low risk for rebleeding can be fed early and discharged early. However, larger, high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these findings, and when the gastrointestinal bleeding patient start enteral nutrition is worth studying.

Use of enteral nutrition for stress ulcer prophylaxis

OBJECTIVE

To review the controversies involving the use of enteral nutrition support for stress ulcer prophylaxis and formulate recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (1966-December 2000) was conducted using the MeSH of nutrition, ulcer, critical care, and acid to identify relevant articles. References of selected articles were reviewed, and relevant abstracts from critical care or gastrointestinal journals identified.

DATA EXTRACTION

Animal and human data from prospective studies, retrospective studies, and case series were evaluated for the effects of enteral nutrition on gastric pH, intramucosal pH, gastrointestinal blood flow, development of macroscopic mucosal erosions, and hemorrhage.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Intragastric administration of enteral nutrition has variable effects on gastric pH, enhances regional distribution of gastrointestinal blood flow, and may lower intramucosal pH. All substrates (carbohydrate, lipid, amino acid), when administered into the stomach, reduce the occurrence of mucosal erosions but do not entirely prevent their development. Few studies of stress ulcer prophylaxis regimens have reported use of enteral nutrition. Limited retrospective data suggest enteral nutrition support may be effective for preventing gastrointestinal hemorrhage, but the results of prospective studies are confounded by poor study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Definitive recommendations regarding the role of enteral nutrition for stress ulcer prophylaxis are not possible due to the lack of prospective, randomized studies. Therefore, the use of enteral nutrition as the only therapeutic agent for stress ulcer prophylaxis should be discouraged until definitive data are available. Initiation and discontinuation of pharmacologic stress ulcer prophylaxis should be independent of enteral nutrition.

Are gastric, jejunal, or both forms of enteral feeding gastroprotective during stress?

BACKGROUND

Clinical data suggest enteral nutrition prevents stress ulceration and intragastric nutrients prevent restraint-induced gastric injury. The purpose of these studies was to determine if jejunal nutrients can protect without gastric contact and to determine if gastric pH, motility, or mucosal perfusion is affected.

METHODS

In Experiment 1, 27 rats were restrained for 2 h at room temperature followed by 2 h in cold (4 degrees C), with intragastric (IG) or intrajejunal (IJ) 2 ml/h infusions of saline or 25% glucose. Gastric lesions, pH, volumes, and glucose concentrations were measured postmortem. In Experiment 2, 23 rats had gastric strain gauges implanted >5 days prior to a 0.5 ml/h IG or IJ infusion during stress. In Experiment 3, 40 rats were anesthetized for laser Doppler measurements of gastric mucosal perfusion and arterial catheter monitoring of systemic hemodynamics. Rats received 0.5-ml boluses of concentrated glucose or saline IG or IJ, and were monitored for 60 min.

RESULTS

(1) The 2 ml/h IJ and IG glucose infusions prevented gastric injury, but the elevated gastric glucose concentrations suggested equal gastric contact. (2) The 0.5 ml/h glucose IG and IJ infusions decreased gastric injury without reflux of the IJ glucose into the stomach and suppressed stress-induced hypercontractility, but not acidity. (3) Systemic perfusion pressures were unaffected by enteral glucose. IG glucose had little effect on gastric mucosal perfusion, while IJ glucose decreased gastric perfusion within 5 min.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies show that large volumes of enteral glucose prevent restraint injury but IJ glucose refluxes into the stomach. The gastroprotective effects of small, nonrefluxing volumes of IJ glucose are associated with suppression of stress-induced gastric hypercontractility, but not with suppressed acidity or enhanced perfusion.

Restraint stress in biomedical research: an update

Since the publication of our initial review of restraint stress in 1986, much work has continued with this technique, either as a tool for the investigation of other pharmacological, physiological, or pathologic phenomena or with restraint stress itself serving as the object of the study. As we noted in 1986, the major use of restraint has been for the induction of stress responses in animals and, more specifically, for the investigation of drug effects, particularly as they affect typical stress-related pathology--gastrointestinal, neuroendocrine, and immunological agents have been extensively studied. In compiling this update on restraint stress and its effects, we noted an increasing emphasis on central nervous system mechanisms in peripheral disease, especially gastrointestinal disease. In particular, many CNS-active agents have been tested for their effects on gastric and duodenal lesion formation and gastric secretion, including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, noradrenergic, serotonergic, dopaminergic, and peptidergic compounds. Some of these agents are especially active in the gastrointestinal tract even when administered centrally, further solidifying the concept of a brain-gut axis. The present update includes studies of: methods and procedures, pre-restraint manipulations, post-restraint/healing effects, and drug effects. In addition, a current bibliography of reports that have employed restraint is included.