The immediate and long-term effects of postoperative total parenteral nutrition on body composition

Nutritional Treatment in Crohn's Disease

Crohn's disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) which can affect any part of the whole gastrointestinal tract (from mouth to anus). Malnutrition affects 65-75% of CD patients, and it is now well acknowledged that diet is of paramount importance in the management of the disease. In this review, we would like to highlight the most recent findings in the field of nutrition for the treatment of CD. Our analysis will cover a wide range of topics, from the well-established diets to the new nutritional theories, along with the recent progress in emerging research fields, such as nutrigenomics.

Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic disease mediated by the immune system and characterized by the inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract. This study is to understand how the use of parenteral nutrition (PN) can affect the adult population diagnosed with IBD. We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. From the different databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane, LILACS, CINAHL, WOS), we found 119 registers with an accuracy of 16% (19 registers). After a full-text review, only 15 research studies were selected for qualitative synthesis and 10 for meta-analysis and meta-regression. The variables used were Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI), albumin, body weight (BW), and postoperative complications (COM). PN has shown to have efficacy for the treatment of IBD and is compatible with other medicines. The CDAI and albumin improve, although the effect of PN is greater after a while. However, the effect on the albumin could be less than the observed value in the meta-analysis due to possible publication bias. The BW does not change after intervention. COM utilizing PN has been observed, although the proportion is low. More studies specifically referring to ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD) are needed to develop more concrete clinical results.

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.

Nutritional support of surgical patients with inflammatory bowel disease

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in need of surgery are often malnourished, which in turn increases the risk for postoperative complications. Malnutrition in IBD patients who must undergo surgery is due to the disordered activity of the diseased intestine, decreased dietary intake, and adverse effects of potent medications. IBD operations predispose patients to both macronutrient and micronutrient deficiencies. If the gut can be used safely it is the preferential route for feeding, though preoperative and postoperative parenteral nutrition remains a viable alternative for severely malnourished patients. New nutrient therapies include immunonutrition, fish oils, and probiotics.

Preoperative optimization of Crohn's disease

Patients with Crohn's disease often present to the surgeon for operative intervention in poor overall condition. They may be taking multiple immunomodulators to attempt to manage their disease, may have significant weight loss and evidence of malnutrition, and 10 to 30% of the time will have intraabdominal sepsis in the form of an abscess or fistula. Preoperative optimization of these patients, when possible, may decrease morbidity and mortality, and may avoid formation of stomas for fecal diversion. Enhancing nutritional status and streamlining immunomodulator therapy prior to surgery may improve outcomes. Medical management of intraabdominal sepsis with percutaneous drainage of abdominal or pelvic abscesses may decrease postoperative septic complications, and may even avert the need for surgical intervention altogether.

Perioperative oral nutrition

Much attention has been paid to perioperative intravenous nutrition and postoperative enteral nutrition but the literature concerning perioperative oral nutrition is sparse. This review will draw attention to new ideas about preoperative feeding instead of overnight fasting, it will show that immediate postoperative oral nutrition is tolerated in significant amounts, that liquid supplements may be given routinely after elective surgery, and that it is worth giving dietary advice to malnourished patients on discharge from hospital.

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition after oesophagogastric surgery: a prospective randomized comparison

BACKGROUND

There appears to be an emerging consensus that early postoperative nutritional support benefits the high-risk patient by decreasing septic morbidity, maintaining immunocompetence and improving wound healing. Enteral nutrition via a feeding jejunostomy has been associated with serious complications, with a reported mortality rate as high as 10%, while total parenteral nutrition has also been associated with a wide variety of complications.

METHODS

Ninety-seven patients undergoing oesophagectomy or gastrectomy underwent pre-operative nutritional assessment and were randomized to receive either total parenteral nutrition (47 patients) or enteral nutrition (50 patients).

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the number of catheter-related complications between the two groups, but 9 (45%) patients in the total parenteral nutrition group had major morbidity (potentially fatal in two patients) requiring active intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates enteral nutrition to be safe and associated with mainly reversible minor complications. It is probable that immediate postoperative enteral feeding conserves the gut's integrity. Whether this leads to a reduction in postoperative septic complications has not been demonstrated by this study although there appears to be a trend in this direction, supporting the concept of enteral feeding as 'primary therapy'. This can be safely, simply and economically achieved using a feeding jejunostomy placed at the time of surgery.

[In which patients and for which procedures has the efficacy of postoperative artificial nutrition be proven?]

This study reviewed 19 prospective studies for the incidence of postoperative nutritional support on outcome in elective surgery. It compared enteral and parenteral nutrition initiated no more than three days preoperatively or postoperatively and prolonged maximally for one month, to a simple infusion of glucose or saline. As all studies had methodological weaknesses, concerning mainly the sample size, it is impossible to propose relevant recommendations. Nevertheless, among the 11 studies on total parenteral nutritional support (nitrogen and caloric supply with carbohydrates and/or lipids), three of them produced valuable results. As the available data do not show any beneficial effect, a routine postoperative nutritional support cannot be recommended, even in patients at high risk of postoperative complications. However for the latter a possible benefit cannot be totally excluded in some of them. When an alimentation per mouth cannot be started during the 8 to 10 days after surgery, an artificial nutritional support becomes mandatory.