Complications associated with enteral nutrition using catheter jejunostomy after esophagectomy

Clinical impact of diarrhea during enteral feeding after esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Enteral feeding (EF) is recommended to enhance nutritional status after esophagectomy; however, diarrhea is a common complication of EF. We investigated the clinical and prognostic impact of diarrhea during EF after esophagectomy.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty-two patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy were enrolled. The King's stool chart was used for stool characterization. The short- and long-term outcomes were compared between a non-diarrhea (Group N) and diarrhea group (Group D).

RESULTS

A higher dysphagia score (≥ 1) was observed more frequently in Group D than in Group N (45.7% vs. 19.8%, p = 0.002). Deterioration of serum total protein, serum albumin, serum cholinesterase, and the prognostic nutritional index after esophagectomy was greater in Group D than in Group N (p = 0.003, 0.004, 0.014, and 0.001, respectively). Patients in Group D had significantly worse overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) than those in Group N (median survival time (MST): OS, 21.9 vs. 30.6 months, p = 0.001; RFS, 12.4 vs. 27.7 months, p < 0.001). In stratified analysis due to age, although there was no difference in OS with or without diarrhea in young patients (MST: 24.1 months in a diarrhea group vs. 33.6 months in a non-diarrhea group, p = 0.218), patients in a diarrhea group had significantly worse OS than those in a non-diarrhea group in elderly patients (MST: 17.8 months vs. 27.9 months, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Diarrhea during EF can put elderly patients at risk of postoperative malnutrition and a poor prognosis after esophagectomy.

Feeding Jejunostomy after esophagectomy cannot be routinely recommended. Analysis of nutritional benefits and catheter-related complications

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer usually deal with malnourishment which increases postoperative morbimortality. The objective of this paper is to analyze the nutritional benefits of feeding jejunostomy (FJ) for early postoperative enteral nutrition (EN) and directly-related complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective study of 100 patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer between 2008 and 2016.

RESULTS

FJ was placed in 47 patients. 82.98% reached EN requirements in FJ group, with a median EN re-start of 1.9 days and median days to objective requirements of 5 days. 51.06% developed directly-related FJ complication, 91.66% of them mild ones (gastrointestinal or catheter-related). 2 patients (4.25%) required re-intervention. No significant differences were shown in total protein and albumin seric levels during first postoperative week and in anastomotic leak rate between both groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding jejunostomies are associated with a great number of complications although most are not life-threatening. Since its nutritional benefit is not proven FJ cannot routinely recommended after esophagectomy. However, the optimal pathway for EN reintroduction, including direct oral intake, is still a matter of debate.

Routes of early enteral nutrition following oesophagectomy

Introduction Oesophagectomy for cancer is a challenging procedure with a five-year overall survival rate of 15-20%. Early enteral nutrition following oesophagectomy is a crucial component of the postoperative recovery and carries a significant impact on the outcome. Different methods of enteral feeding were conducted in our unit. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of nasojejunal tube (NJT), jejunostomy tube (JT) and pharyngostomy tube (PT) feeding after oesophagectomy. Methods A retrospective review was carried out of prospectively collected data on patients with oesophageal cancer who underwent an oesophagectomy between 2011 and 2014. The primary outcome was feeding tube related complications such as occlusion, dislocation and leak. The secondary outcomes were length of stay and 30-day morbidity. Results A total of 90 oesophagectomies were included in the study. A NJT was inserted in 41 patients (45.6%), a JT was used in 14 patients (15.5%) and a PT was the route for enteral nutrition in 35 patients (38.9%). In total, five patients (5.5%) developed tube related complications. There were no tube related complications in the NJT group but one JT patient (7.1%) developed tube related cellulitis (p=0.189) and four PT patients (11.4%) developed tube related haemorrhage (p=0.544), tube dislocation (p=0.544) or cellulitis (p=0.189). The median length of stay and 30-day postoperative morbidity were similar between the groups. Conclusions NJT feeding is a less invasive, feasible route for early enteral nutrition following oesophagectomy. A randomised controlled trial is recommended to verify these findings.

Feeding duodenostomy decreases the incidence of mechanical obstruction after radical esophageal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Nutritional support influences the outcome of gastroenterological surgery, and enteral nutrition effectively mitigates postoperative complications in highly invasive surgery such as resection of esophageal cancer. However, feeding via jejunostomy can cause complications including mechanical obstruction, which could be life threatening. From 2009, we began enteral feeding via duodenostomy to reduce the likelihood of complications. In this study, we compared duodenostomy with the conventional jejunostomy feeding, mainly looking at the catheter-related complications.

METHODS

The database records of 378 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent radical esophagectomy with retrosternal or posterior mediastinal gastric tube reconstruction in our department from January 1998 to December 2012 were examined. Of the 378 patients, 111 underwent feeding via duodenostomy (FD) and 267 underwent feeding via jejunostomy (FJ), and their records were reviewed for the following catheter-related complications: site infection, dislodgement, peritonitis, and mechanical obstruction.

RESULTS

Mechanical obstruction occurred in 12 patients in the FJ group but none in the FD group (4.5 % vs. 0 %, P = 0.023). Of the 12 cases, 7 (58.3 %) required surgery of which 2 had bowel resection due to strangulated mechanical obstruction. Catheter site infection was seen in 14 cases in the FJ group, of which 2 (14.2 %) had peritonitis following catheter dislocation, while only one case of site infection was seen in the FD group (5.2 % vs. 0.9 %, P = 0.078).

CONCLUSIONS

Feeding via duodenectomy could be the procedure of choice since neither mechanical obstruction nor relaparotomy was seen during enteral feeding through this technique.

Jejunostomy after oesophagectomy: a review of evidence and current practice

Patients undergoing oesophagectomy often have nutritional needs at the time of diagnosis and in the post-operative period. The aim of this article is to review the current literature and report on the author's experience of routine feeding jejunostomy insertion following oesophagectomy. The records of forty-eight consecutive patients undergoing oesphagectomy under the author's care were reviewed. Although the evidence of benefit of peri-operative feeding in patients undergoing oesophagectomy is limited, there is a clear need to establish a feeding route at the time of surgery. Oesophagectomy is associated with a mortality rate of 5-10% and a morbidity rate of 30-40% even in high-volume specialist centres. Over 50% of patients developing complications will require an alternative to oral feeding beyond 30 d. The enteral route is preferred in terms of safety and cost. A surgical feeding jejunostomy is associated with a low complication rate and a mortality rate of less than 1%. In forty-eight patients undergoing oesophagectomy the average weight loss at 6 months was 8·4 kg with only 8% regaining their pre-operative weight. Large reductions in weight at 6 months post-operatively were recorded irrespective of the development of post-operative complications or early recurrent disease. Routine jejunostomy insertion is recommended to ensure adequate nutrition in patients who develop post-operative complications and for those patients with long-term reduced appetite and poor oral intake.

Feeding jejunostomy tubes placed during esophagectomy: are they necessary?

BACKGROUND

Jejunostomy tubes (JT) are routinely placed at the time of esophagectomy and can be associated with low--but not insignificant--morbidity. Increased emphasis on evidence-based medicine prompted this critical review of JT use during esophagectomy and factors that predict the absolute need for JT.

METHODS

All esophagectomies performed at one tertiary care institution from 1995 through 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. Statistical analyses were performed to determine preoperative variables that would assist in selecting patients who should receive a JT.

RESULTS

A total of 143 JTs were placed in 151 patients undergoing esophagectomy for carcinoma (83.4%), high-grade dysplasia (13.2%), and perforation (2.6%). Of these, 110 patients (76.9%) had returned to oral intake before discharge (median, 7 days), whereas 33 patients (23.1%) still required tube feedings. Of 8 patients who did not undergo intraoperative JT placement, 6 had resumed oral intake at discharge. Two patients were discharged on total parenteral nutrition. Logistic regression analysis of preoperative variables showed a body mass index of less than 18.5 kg/m2 conferred a likelihood of requiring a JT at discharge (odds ratio, 7.56; p<0.05). Age, sex, albumin level, type of esophagectomy, histology, stage, preoperative neoadjuvant therapy, and type of cancer were not significant predictors of JT need at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

The only absolute indication for JT placement after esophagectomy was a body mass index of less than 18.5 kg/m2. Other patients may have selective JT placement based on the surgeon's judgment.

Feeding jejunostomy: does the benefit overweight the risk (a retrospective study from a single centre)

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to review the efficacy and safety of feeding jejunostomy in terms of achieving the nutritional goals in patients undergoing esophagectomy for carcinoma of oesophagus and complications associated hence with.

METHODS

A total of 463 patients underwent esophagogastrectomy for carcinoma oesophagus during this period. All these patients underwent Witzel feeding jejunostomy for post-operative enteral nutrition. Enteral feeding was started after 24 h of surgery and increased gradually till target caloric and protein value was achieved. Nutritional goals achieved were reviewed. All complications related to jejunostomy were recorded.

RESULTS

The study comprised of 463 patients who underwent elective esophagogastrectomy. Mean age was 58 +/- 8.4 in male patients and 55 +/- 4.2 years in female patients. Patients spend a mean of 19 +/- 8.4 (range 10-49) days on jejunostomy feed. The targeted calorie requirement was achieved by post-operative day 3 in 408 (88.12%) patients. The catheter blockage was one of the main complications during the course of feeding. Seven patients required relaparotomy for catheter blockage.

CONCLUSION

Feeding jejunostomy is an effective, safe, economic and well tolerated method of providing nutrition to the patients of esophagogastrectomy. Feeding jejunostomy should be done in every patient undergoing esophagectomy at the time of laparotomy.

Benefits versus risks: a prospective audit. Feeding jejunostomy during esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this prospectively collected database is to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and utility of postoperative jejunostomy feeding in terms of achieving nutritional goals and evaluating gastrointestinal and mechanical complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy.

METHODS

The study included 204 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for various benign and malignant conditions. All patients underwent Witzel feeding jejunostomy at the time of laparotomy. Patients were followed prospectively to record nutritional intake, type of feed administered, rate progression, tolerance, and complications either mechanical or gastrointestinal.

RESULTS

Feeding jejunostomy could be performed in 99.5% patients; 6.0% of the patients had a blocked catheter during the course of feeding. The target calorie requirement could be achieved in 78% of patients by third day. In all, 95% of patients could be successfully fed exclusively by jejunostomy catheter during the postoperative period. Minor gastrointestinal complications developed in 15% of the patients and were managed by slowing the rate of infusion or administering medication. Patients spent a mean of 16.67 +/- 22.00 days (range 0-46 days) on jejunostomy feeding after surgery; however, 13% required prolonged jejunostomy feeding beyond 30 days. Altogether, 64% of the patients with an anastomotic leak and 50% of the patients with postoperative complications required catheter jejunostomy feeding beyond 30 days. The mean duration for which jejunostomy tube feeding was used was significantly higher for patients who developed anastomotic disruptions (33.05 +/- 16.24 vs. 14.69 +/- 19.04 days; p = 0.000) and postoperative complications (26.67 +/- 25.56 vs. 14.52 +/- 18.64 days; p = 0.000) when compared to those without disruption or complications. There were no serious complications related to the feeding catheter that required reintervention. There was no difference in the mean body weight or weight deficit at the end of 10 days and at 1 month in patients who developed complications or anastomotic disruption when compared to their counterparts. No patient died as a result of a complication related to the feeding jejunostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Tube jejunostomy feeding is an effective method for providing nutritional support in patients undergoing esophagectomy, and it allows home support for the subset who fail to thrive. Prolonged tube feeding was continued in patients developing anastomotic disruptions and postoperative complications. Feeding jejunostomy has a definitive role to play in the management of the patients undergoing esophagectomy.

Early enteral feeding compared with parenteral nutrition after oesophageal or oesophagogastric resection and reconstruction

After resective and reconstructive surgery in the gastrointestinal tract, oral feeding is traditionally avoided in order to minimize strain to the anastomoses and to reduce the inherent risks of the postoperatively impaired gastrointestinal motility. However, studies have given evidence that the small bowel recovers its ability to absorb nutrients almost immediately following surgery, even in the absence of peristalsis, and that early enteral feeding would preserve both the integrity of gut mucosa and its immunological function. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of early enteral feeding on the postoperative course following oesophagectomy or oesophagogastrectomy, and reconstruction. Between May 1999 and November 2002, forty-four consecutive patients (thirty-eight males and six females; mean age 62, range 30–82) with oesophageal carcinoma (stages I–III), who had undergone radical resection and reconstruction, entered this study (early enteral feeding group; EEF). A historical group of forty-four patients (thirty-seven males and seven females; mean age 64, range 41–79; stages I–III) resected between January 1997 and March 1999 served as control (parenteral feeding group; PF). The duration of both postoperative stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and the total hospital stay, perioperative complications and the overall mortality were compared. Early enteral feeding was administered over the jejunal line of a Dobhoff tube. It started 6 h postoperatively at a rate of 10 ml/h for 6 h with stepwise increase until total enteral nutrition was achieved on day 6. In the controls oral enteral feeding was begun on day 7. If compared to the PF group, EEF patients recovered faster considering the duration of both stay in the ICU and in the hospital. There was a significant difference in the interval until the first bowel movements. No difference in overall 30 d mortality was identified. A poor nutritional status was a significant prognostic factor for an increased mortality. Early enteral feeding significantly reduces the duration of ICU treatment and total hospital stay in patients who undergo oesophagectomy or oesophagogastrectomy for oesophageal carcinoma. The mortality rate is not affected.

Randomized clinical trial comparing feeding jejunostomy with nasoduodenal tube placement in patients undergoing oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Feeding jejunostomy is frequently performed in patients undergoing oesophageal surgery, but can lead to serious complications. This prospective randomized trial compared the efficacy and complications of feeding jejunostomy with those of nasoduodenal tube feeding in oesophageal surgery.

METHODS

Over an 18-month period, 150 consecutive patients undergoing oesophageal resection were randomized to participate in the trial. Enteral access was by jejunostomy in 79 patients and by nasoduodenal tube in 71. Enteral feeding was started on the first day after surgery.

RESULTS

Full enteral feeding took 3 days to be established in both groups. Minor catheter-related complications occurred in 28 patients (35 per cent) in the jejunostomy group, and in 21 (30 per cent) in the nasoduodenal group (P = 0.488). One patient had jejunostomy leakage that required reoperation. Enteral nutrition was given for a median of 11 days in the jejunostomy group and for 10 days in the nasoduodenal group. Nine patients who had a jejunostomy and five with a nasoduodenal tube did not tolerate full enteral feeding (P = 0.411).

CONCLUSION

Nasoduodenal tube feeding is safe and efficient after oesophageal resection.

Post-oesophagectomy early enteral nutrition via a needle catheter jejunostomy: 8-year experience at a specialist unit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate post-operative jejunostomy feeding in terms of nutritional, biochemical, gastrointestinal and mechanical complications in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal surgery for oesophageal malignancy.

METHODS

The study included 205 consecutive patients who underwent oesophagectomy for malignancy. All patients had a needle catheter jejunostomy (NCJ) inserted at the conclusion of laparotomy. Patients were followed prospectively to record nutritional intake, type of feed administered, rate progression, tolerance, weight changes and complications either mechanical, biochemical or gastrointestinal.

RESULTS

Ninety-two per cent of patients were successfully fed exclusively by NCJ post-oesophagectomy, and 94% of patients were tolerating a maintenance regimen of 2000 ml feed over 20 h by day 2 post-operatively. Patients spent a median of 15 days on jejunostomy feeding post-surgery (range 2-112 days); however, 26% required prolonged jejunostomy feeding (>20 days). Minor gastrointestinal complications were effectively managed by slowing the rate of infusion, or administering medication. Three (1.4%) serious complications of jejunostomy feeding occurred, all requiring re-laparotomy, one resulting in death. NCJ feeding was extremely effective in preventing severe post-operative weight loss in the majority of oesophagectomy patients post-op. However, oral intake was generally poor at discharge with only 65% of requirements being met orally. Sixteen patients (8%) patients required home jejunostomy feeding. By the first post-operative month, a further 6% (12) patients were recommenced on jejunostomy feeding.

CONCLUSION

NCJ feeding is an effective method of providing nutritional support post-oesophagectomy, and allows home support for the subset that fail to thrive. Serious complications, most usually intestinal ischaemia or intractable diarrhoea, are rare.

Nutritional support

Despite the increasing obesity of the American population, many chronically ill patients are malnourished. When this malnutrition is combined with the hypermetabolic response and protein catabolism of an acute event, such as an operation, nutritional support becomes an important facet for optimal critical care. This chapter reviews the basic tenants of nutritional support with special emphasis on patients with pulmonary compromise. Important aspects of caloric and protein support are discussed and enteral nutrition is emphasized because of its numerous advantages and documented improvement in outcome.

Modulating effects of the feeding route on stress response and endotoxin translocation in severely stressed patients receiving thoracic esophagectomy

Experimental studies have demonstrated that the route of nutritional supply impacts the systemic metabolic responses after surgical injury. Intestinal mucosal atrophy, as induced by total parenteral nutrition (TPN) or prolonged bowel rest, has been reported to enhance bowel endotoxin translocation. The operative procedure for thoracic esophageal cancer, including thoracotomy, laparotomy, and three-field lymph-node dissection, is a particularly stressful surgery that requires long-term aggressive nutritional support and often results in the postoperative hypermetabolic state, leading to perturbation of postoperative immune function. Interleukin-6 (IL-6) plays an important role in host inflammatory responses, whereas IL-10 is linked to suppression of cellular immunity. The aim of this study was to investigate how the antecedent nutritional routes influence systemic IL-6 and IL-10 responses and endotoxin translocation after an operation for thoracic esophageal cancer. Twenty-nine patients who underwent esophagectomy with three-field lymphadenectomy were investigated. They were assigned to groups receiving either TPN (n = 18) or enteral nutrition (EN; n = 11) providing 35 kcal x kg(-1) x d(-1) of energy and approximately 1.2-1.5 g x kg(-1) x d(-1) of amino acids. These nutritional supports were conducted from 1 wk before the operation to 14 d after the operation. Serum IL-6, IL-10, and endotoxin concentration were measured before and during the operation and at 2 h and 1, 3, and 7 d after the operation. IL-6 in sera was significantly higher after the operation in both groups. In the EN group, however, significantly less IL-6 production was observed on the third and seventh postoperative days when compared with those patients in the TPN group. Similarly, serum IL-10 concentration in the TPN group showed a significantly higher level than that in the EN group. Serum IL-6 showed a significant positive correlation with IL-10 at 2 h and at 7 d after the operation, suggesting that the reduced inflammatory responses were related to the inhibition of the development of postoperative immunosuppression. Endotoxin concentration in sera was significantly lower in the EN group after the operation than in the TPN group. Perioperative EN provides better regulation of inflammatory cytokine responses and may contribute less to immunosuppression after major surgery than parenteral nutrition. The attenuated production of endotoxin induced by EN may play an important role in these phenomena.

Digest

Professor Seiki Matsuno, Chief Editor of Surgery Today (The Japanese Journal of Surgery), has selected from the January to March 1999 issues of the journal for this quarter's digest. A digest of BJS for the same period written by Mr Colin Johnson, Development Officer, appears in the Japanese journal.