Influence of postoperative enteral nutrition on cellular immunity. A random double-blinded placebo controlled clinical trial

Effect of an Evidence-Based Nutrition Care Pathway for Cancer Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal and Pelvic Surgery

Malnutrition in gastrointestinal surgery is associated with poorer post-operative outcomes which may be mitigated by delivery of evidence-based nutrition care. This study reports on the development, implementation and evaluation of an evidence-based nutrition care pathway for lower gastrointestinal and pelvic cancer patients. A retrospective cohort study of 40 surgical lower gastrointestinal and pelvic cancer patients pre- and post-implementation of the pathway was conducted. Outcomes assessed were, care pathway adherence, weight change, time to post-operative commencement of nutrition, and post-operative length of stay. Post-implementation of the pathway there were significant improvements in the proportion of patients who received dietetic assessment and education pre-surgery (0% vs 55%, P < .001) at regular intervals during admission (35% vs. 90%, P < .001) and post-discharge (22.5% vs. 81.8%, P < .001). Mean weight change between admission and discharge reduced post-implementation (-3.5%, SD 4.7 vs, -5.6%, SD 4.7; P = 0.08). Post-operative length of stay remained similar (16 day, IQR 11-34.7 vs. 17.5 day, IQR 11.2-25; P = 0.71). Post-implementation a greater proportion of patients commenced oral or enteral nutrition within 24 h, post-operatively (75% vs. 57.5%, P = 0.1). The nutrition care pathway was an effective method for delivering evidence-based nutrition care, resulting in clinically but not statistically significant improvements in outcomes.

Early enteral nutrition within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal surgery versus later commencement for length of hospital stay and postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the review last published in 2011. It focuses on early postoperative enteral nutrition after lower gastrointestinal surgery. Traditional management consisted of 'nil by mouth', where patients receive fluids followed by solids after bowel function has returned. Although several trials have reported lower incidence of infectious complications and faster wound healing upon early feeding, other trials have shown no effect. The immediate advantage of energy intake (carbohydrates, protein or fat) could enhance recovery with fewer complications, and this warrants a systematic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether early commencement of postoperative enteral nutrition (within 24 hours), oral intake and any kind of tube feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal), compared with traditional management (delayed nutritional supply) is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LoS), fewer complications, mortality and adverse events in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery (distal to the ligament of Treitz).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 15 November 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 15 November 2017). We also searched for ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (15 November 2017). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and previous systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing early commencement of enteral nutrition (within 24 hours) with no feeding in adult participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool tailored to this review and extracted data. Data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations.We rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE.Primary outcomes were LoS and postoperative complications (wound infections, intraabdominal abscesses, anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia).Secondary outcomes were: mortality, adverse events (nausea, vomiting), and quality of life (QoL).LoS was estimated using mean difference (MD (presented as mean +/- SD). For other outcomes we estimated the common risk ratio (RR) and calculated the associated 95% confidence intervals. For analysis, we used an inverse-variance random-effects model for the primary outcome (LoS) and Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models for the secondary outcomes. We also performed Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 RCTs with 1437 participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in two or more domains. Six studies were judged as having low risk of selection bias for random sequence generation and insufficient details were provided for judgement on allocation concealment in all 17 studies. With regards to performance and deception bias; 14 studies reported no attempt to blind participants and blinding of personnel was not discussed either. Only one study was judged as low risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessor. With regards to incomplete outcome data, three studies were judged to be at high risk because they had more than 10% difference in missing data between groups. For selective reporting, nine studies were judged as unclear as protocols were not provided and eight studies had issues with either missing data or incomplete reporting of results.LOS was reported in 16 studies (1346 participants). The mean LoS ranged from four days to 16 days in the early feeding groups and from 6.6 days to 23.5 days in the control groups. Mean difference (MD) in LoS was 1.95 (95% CI, -2.99 to -0.91, P < 0.001) days shorter in the early feeding group. However, there was substantial heterogeneity between included studies (I² = 81, %, Chi² = 78.98, P < 0.00001), thus the overall quality of evidence for LoS is low. These results were confirmed by the TSA showing that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit.We found no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications: wound infection (12 studies, 1181 participants, RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.52, very low-quality evidence), intraabdominal abscesses (6 studies, 554 participants, RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.26 to 3.80, low-quality evidence), anastomotic leakage/dehiscence (13 studies, 1232 participants, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.38 to 1.61, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 100), and pneumonia (10 studies, 954 participants, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.32 to 2.42, low-quality evidence; NNTB = 333).Mortality was reported in 12 studies (1179 participants), and showed no between-group differences (RR = 0.56, 95%CI, 0.21 to 1.52, P = 0.26, I² = 0%, Chi² = 3.08, P = 0.96, low-quality evidence). The most commonly reported cause of death was anastomotic leakage, sepsis and acute myocardial infarction.Seven studies (613 participants) reported vomiting (RR 1.23, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.58, P = 0.10, I² = 0%, Chi² = 4.98, P = 0.55, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 19), and two studies (118 participants) reported nausea (RR 0.95, 0.71 to 1.26, low-quality evidence). Four studies reported combined nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.74, very low-quality evidence). One study reported QoL assessment; the scores did not differ between groups at 30 days after discharge on either QoL scale EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QlQ-OV28 (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that early enteral feeding may lead to a reduced postoperative LoS, however cautious interpretation must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality evidence. For all other outcomes (postoperative complications, mortality, adverse events, and QoL) the findings are inconclusive, and further trials are justified to enhance the understanding of early feeding for these. In this updated review, only a few additional studies have been included, and these were small and of poor quality.To improve the evidence, future trials should address quality issues and focus on clearly defining and measuring postoperative complications to allow for better comparison between studies. However due to the introduction of fast track protocols which already include an early feeding component, future trials may be challenging. A more feasible trial may be to investigate the effect of differing postoperative energy intake regimens on relevant outcomes.

Early enteral nutrition within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal surgery versus later commencement for length of hospital stay and postoperative complications

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the review last published in 2011. It focuses on early postoperative enteral nutrition after lower gastrointestinal surgery. Traditional management consisted of 'nil by mouth', where patients receive fluids followed by solids after bowel function has returned. Although several trials have reported lower incidence of infectious complications and faster wound healing upon early feeding, other trials have shown no effect. The immediate advantage of energy intake (carbohydrates, protein or fat) could enhance recovery with fewer complications, and this warrants a systematic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether early commencement of postoperative enteral nutrition (within 24 hours), oral intake and any kind of tube feeding (gastric, duodenal or jejunal), compared with traditional management (delayed nutritional supply) is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay (LoS), fewer complications, mortality and adverse events in patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery (distal to the ligament of Treitz).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library 2017, issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to 15 November 2017), Ovid Embase (1974 to 15 November 2017). We also searched for ongoing trials in ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (15 November 2017). We handsearched reference lists of identified studies and previous systematic reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing early commencement of enteral nutrition (within 24 hours) with no feeding in adult participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool tailored to this review and extracted data. Data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane recommendations.We rated the quality of evidence according to GRADE.Primary outcomes were LoS and postoperative complications (wound infections, intraabdominal abscesses, anastomotic dehiscence, pneumonia).Secondary outcomes were: mortality, adverse events (nausea, vomiting), and quality of life (QoL).LoS was estimated using mean difference (MD (presented as mean +/- SD). For other outcomes we estimated the common risk ratio (RR) and calculated the associated 95% confidence intervals. For analysis, we used an inverse-variance random-effects model for the primary outcome (LoS) and Mantel-Haenszel random-effects models for the secondary outcomes. We also performed Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 17 RCTs with 1437 participants undergoing lower gastrointestinal surgery. Most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias in two or more domains. Six studies were judged as having low risk of selection bias for random sequence generation and insufficient details were provided for judgement on allocation concealment in all 17 studies. With regards to performance and deception bias; 14 studies reported no attempt to blind participants and blinding of personnel was not discussed either. Only one study was judged as low risk of bias for blinding of outcome assessor. With regards to incomplete outcome data, three studies were judged to be at high risk because they had more than 10% difference in missing data between groups. For selective reporting, nine studies were judged as unclear as protocols were not provided and eight studies had issues with either missing data or incomplete reporting of results.LOS was reported in 16 studies (1346 participants). The mean LoS ranged from four days to 16 days in the early feeding groups and from 6.6 days to 23.5 days in the control groups. Mean difference (MD) in LoS was 1.95 (95% CI, -2.99 to -0.91, P < 0.001) days shorter in the early feeding group. However, there was substantial heterogeneity between included studies (I² = 81, %, Chi² = 78.98, P < 0.00001), thus the overall quality of evidence for LoS is low. These results were confirmed by the TSA showing that the cumulative Z-curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary for benefit.We found no differences in the incidence of postoperative complications: wound infection (12 studies, 1181 participants, RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.52, very low-quality evidence), intraabdominal abscesses (6 studies, 554 participants, RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.26 to 3.80, low-quality evidence), anastomotic leakage/dehiscence (13 studies, 1232 participants, RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.38 to 1.61, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 100), and pneumonia (10 studies, 954 participants, RR 0.88, 95%CI 0.32 to 2.42, low-quality evidence; NNTB = 333).Mortality was reported in 12 studies (1179 participants), and showed no between-group differences (RR = 0.56, 95%CI, 0.21 to 1.52, P = 0.26, I² = 0%, Chi² = 3.08, P = 0.96, low-quality evidence). The most commonly reported cause of death was anastomotic leakage, sepsis and acute myocardial infarction.Seven studies (613 participants) reported vomiting (RR 1.23, 95%CI, 0.96 to 1.58, P = 0.10, I² = 0%, Chi² = 4.98, P = 0.55, low-quality evidence; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 19), and two studies (118 participants) reported nausea (RR 0.95, 0.71 to 1.26, low-quality evidence). Four studies reported combined nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.51 to 1.74, very low-quality evidence). One study reported QoL assessment; the scores did not differ between groups at 30 days after discharge on either QoL scale EORTC QLQ-C30 or EORTC QlQ-OV28 (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that early enteral feeding may lead to a reduced postoperative LoS, however cautious interpretation must be taken due to substantial heterogeneity and low-quality evidence. For all other outcomes (postoperative complications, mortality, adverse events, and QoL) the findings are inconclusive, and further trials are justified to enhance the understanding of early feeding for these. In this updated review, only a few additional studies have been included, and these were small and of poor quality.To improve the evidence, future trials should address quality issues and focus on clearly defining and measuring postoperative complications to allow for better comparison between studies. However due to the introduction of fast track protocols which already include an early feeding component, future trials may be challenging. A more feasible trial may be to investigate the effect of differing postoperative energy intake regimens on relevant outcomes.

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.

Early Enteral Combined with Parenteral Nutrition Treatment for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: Effects on Immune Function, Nutritional Status and Outcomes

Objective To compare the conjoint effect of enteral nutrition (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) with single EN or PN on immune function, nutritional status, complications and clinical outcomes of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (STBI). Methods A prospective randomized control trial was carried out from January 2009 to May 2012 in Neurological Intensive Care Unit (NICU). Patients of STBI who met the enrolment criteria (Glasgow Coma Scale score 6~8; Nutritional Risk Screening ≥3) were randomly divided into 3 groups and were admi- nistrated EN, PN or EN+PN treatments respectively. The indexes of nutritional status, immune function, complications and clinical outcomes were examined and compared statistically. Results There were 120 patients enrolled in the study, with 40 pationts in each group. In EN+PN group, T lymthocyte subsets CD3+%, CD4+%, ratio of CD3+/CD25+, ratio of CD4+/CD8+, the plasma levels of IgA, IgM, and IgG at 20 days after nutritional treatment were significantly increased compared to the baseline(t=4.32-30.00, P<0.01), and they were significantly higher than those of PN group (t=2.44-14.70; P<0.05,or P<0.01) with exception of CD4+/CD8+, higher than those of EN group (t=2.49-13.31, P<0.05, or P<0.01) with exceptions of CD3+/CD25+, CD4+/CD8+, IgG and IgM. For the nutritional status, the serum total protein, albumin, prealbumin and hemoglobin were significantly higher in the EN (t=5.87-11.91; P<0.01) and EN+PN groups (t=6.12-13.12; P<0.01) than those in PN group after nutrition treatment. The serum prealbumin was higher in EN+PN group than that in EN group (t=2.08; P<0.05). Compared to the PN group, the complication occurrence rates of EN+PN group were significantly lower in stress ulcer (22.5% vs. 47.5%; χ²= 8.24, P<0.01), intracranial infection (12.5% vs 32.5%;χ²= 6.88, P<0.01) and pyemia (25.0% vs. 47.5%; χ²= 6.57, P<0.05). Compared to the EN group, the complication occurrence rates of EN+PN group were significantly lower in aspirated pneumonia (27.5% vs. 50.0%; χ²= 6.39, P<0.05), hypoproteinemia (17.5% vs. 55.0%; χ²= 18.26, P<0.01) and diarrhea (20.0% vs. 60.0%; χ²= 20.00, P<0.01). The EN+PN group also had significant less length of stay in NICU (t=2.51, 4.82; P<0.05, P<0.01), number of patients receiving assisted mechanical ventilation (χ²= 6.08, 12.88; P<0.05, P<0.01) and its durations (t=3.41, 9.08; P<0.05, P<0.01), and the death rate (χ²=7.50, 16.37; P<0.05, P<0.01) than those of EN or PN group. Conclusion Early EN+PN treatment could promote the recovery of the immune function, enhance nutritional status, decrease complications and improve the clinical outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

Fast-track surgery improves postoperative clinical recovery and cellular and humoral immunity after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer

Background

Our aim was to investigate the influence of FTS on human cellular and humoral immunity using a randomized controlled clinical study in esophageal cancer patients.

Methods

Between October 2013 and December 2014, 276 patients with esophageal cancer in our department were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomized into two groups: FTS pathway group and conventional pathway group. The postoperative hospital stay, hospitalization expenditure, and postoperative complications were recorded. The markers of inflammatory and immune function were measured before operation as well as on the 1st, 3rd, and 7th postoperative days (POD), including serum level of interleukin-6 (IL-6), C-reactive protein (CRP), serum globulin, immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin M (IgM), immunoglobulin A (IgA) and lymphocyte subpopulations (CD3 lymphocytes, CD4 lymphocytes, CD8 lymphocytes and the CD4/CD8 ratio) in the patients between the two groups.

Results

In all, 260 patients completed the study: 128 in the FTS group and 132 in the conventional group. We found implementation of FTS pathway decreases postoperative length of stay and hospital charges (P < 0.05). In addition, inflammatory reactions, based on IL-6 and CRP levels, were less intense following FTS pathway compared to conventional pathway on POD1 and POD3 (P < 0.05). On POD1 and POD3, the levels of IgG, IgA, CD3 lymphocytes, CD4 lymphocytes and the CD4/CD8 ratio in FTS group were significantly higher than those in control group (All P < 0.05). However, there were no differences in the level of IgM and CD8 lymphocytes between the two groups.

Conclusions

FTS improves postoperative clinical recovery and effectively inhibited release of inflammatory factors via the immune system after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

Trial registration

ChiCTR-TRC-13003562, the date of registration: August 29, 2013.

Advances in clinical nutrition in GI surgery

This review addresses recent relevant advances to clinical nutrition regarding gastrointestinal disease surgery. Medline Ovid, EMBASE and Central were searched systematically in April 2014. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies evaluating nutritional support in gastrointestinal surgery published within 5 years. The review included 56 relevant studies. Themes were: nutrition screening and risk factors predict outcome; preoperative nutritional support; shortening fasting periods and including carbohydrate solutions; early nutrition after surgery; immune modulating nutrition; synbiotics, growth hormone, omega-3 and oral, enteral and parenteral nutrition in combination. Screening for nutritional risk is profound, with special focus on dietary intake in the past week. Age and severity of disease need to be included in the screening system. Patients at severe nutritional risk benefit from nutritional therapy before surgery. New standards are developing quickly and clinical guidelines on surgery should include updated knowledge within clinical nutrition.

Influence of Postoperative Enteral Nutrition on Cellular Immunity: Investigative Procedures, Tests and Analysis

“Postoperative enteral nutrition and cellular immunity” is mostly described in the literature on research into surgical complications. The intention is to show whether a given treatment can be identified as having a beneficial clinical effect and to demonstrate this by the effect on, among other factors, cellular immunity.

In order to show that the inclusion of a particular nutrient would have a beneficial effect on cellular immunity, and thus the postoperative course, the research is often related to various types of postoperative immuno-nutrition.

This chapter will briefly describe various types of immuno-nutrition and the influence of the added nutrients on cellular immunity.

In describing cellular immunity, many different lymphocyte subpopulations have been used, along with markers to describe their activity. As all the different subpopulations can be difficult to remember and understand, the aim of this chapter is to give the reader a short overview of the cellular immunity aspects.

It will also give a brief overview of the two types of cells most often described in the literature and their function in the immune response.

Many articles indicate the subpopulations of different lymphocyte groups in percentages, making it difficult to understand the comparisons between the different phases of, for example, a postoperative course. This chapter will provide a summary of the investigative procedures described in the literature and explain how to proceed with tests and analyses and how to specify the results so that they can be used to compare the results obtained at different times during the test period.

A brief description of the flow cytometric method has therefore been included to give the reader an understanding of how the number of subpopulation percentages is indicated.

Innate immune function after breast, lung, and colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

The cytotoxic activity and count of natural killer (NK) cells appear to be reduced after surgery; however, it is unknown whether the magnitude of this immune suppression is similar among different types of oncological surgery. In this study, we compared the innate immune function of patients undergoing three different oncological surgeries.

METHODS

We compared the number and function of NK cells obtained from patients who had undergone mastectomies (n = 17), thoracotomies (n = 21), or liver resections for cancer (n = 22). Cytotoxicity assays were performed to measure the function of NK cells. We also determined the plasma concentrations of interleukins (IL) 2 and 4, interferon-γ, granzyme B, perforin, soluble major histocompatibility complex class I-related chain A, and epinephrine, both before and 24 h after surgery. Differences in immunologic parameters were compared preoperatively and postoperatively and by type of surgery. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The preoperative NK cell count differed statistically (P < 0.006) among all three types of surgeries; however, within surgery postoperative counts and changes compared with baseline did not. The postoperative function of NK cells was similar among types of surgeries, but was significantly reduced compared with preoperative levels (mastectomy P < 0.0001, thoracotomy P = 0.001, and liver resections P = 0.002). We observed a significant increase in the postoperative plasma concentrations of epinephrine, whereas the concentrations of major histocompatibility class I polypeptide-related sequence A and the IL-2 and/or IL-4 ratio remained unchanged before and after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The magnitude of innate immune suppression is similar among different oncological procedures. More studies are needed to better understand this complex phenomenon.

Peritransplant absolute lymphocyte count as a predictive factor for advanced recurrence of hepatitis C after liver transplantation

Lymphocytes play an active role in natural immunity against hepatitis C virus (HCV). We hypothesized that a lower absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) may alter HCV outcome after liver transplantation (LT). The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of peritransplant ALC on HCV recurrence following LT. A total of 289 LT patients between 2005 and 2011 were evaluated. Peritransplant ALC (pre-LT, 2-week, and 1-month post-LT) and immunosuppression were analyzed along with recipient and donor factors in order to determine risk factors for HCV recurrence based on METAVIR fibrosis score. When stratifying patients according to pre- and post-LT ALC (<500/μL versus 500-1,000/μL versus >1,000/μL), lymphopenia was significantly associated with higher rates of HCV recurrence with fibrosis (F2-4). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed posttransplant ALC at 1 month remained an independent predictive factor for recurrence (P = 0.02, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.47 for <500/μL). When peritransplant ALC was persistently low (<500/μL pre-LT, 2-week, and 1-month post-LT), patients were at significant risk of developing early advanced fibrosis secondary to HCV recurrence (F3-4 within 2 years) (P = 0.02, HR = 3.16). Furthermore, severe pretransplant lymphopenia (<500/μL) was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (P = 0.01, HR = 3.01). The use of rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin induction (RATG) had a remarkable protective effect on HCV recurrence (P = 0.02, HR = 0.6) despite its potential to induce lymphopenia. Subgroup analysis indicated that negative effects of posttransplant lymphopenia at 1 month (<1,000/μL) were significant regardless of RATG use and the protective effects of RATG were independent of posttransplant lymphopenia.

CONCLUSION

Peritransplant ALC is a novel and useful surrogate marker for prediction of HCV recurrence and patient survival. Immunosuppression protocols and peritransplant management should be scrutinized depending on peritransplant ALC.

Monitoring immune modulation by nutrition in the general population: identifying and substantiating effects on human health

Optimal functioning of the immune system is crucial to human health, and nutrition is one of the major exogenous factors modulating different aspects of immune function. Currently, no single marker is available to predict the effect of a dietary intervention on different aspects of immune function. To provide further guidance on the assessment and interpretation of the modulation of immune functions due to nutrition in the general population, International Life Sciences Institute Europe commissioned a group of experts from academia, government and the food industry to prepare a guidance document. A draft of this paper was refined at a workshop involving additional experts. First, the expert group defined criteria to evaluate the usefulness of immune function markers. Over seventy-five markers were scored within the context of three distinct immune system functions: defence against pathogens; avoidance or mitigation of allergy; control of low-grade (metabolic) inflammation. The most useful markers were subsequently classified depending on whether they by themselves signify clinical relevance and/or involvement of immune function. Next, five theoretical scenarios were drafted describing potential changes in the values of markers compared with a relevant reference range. Finally, all elements were combined, providing a framework to aid the design and interpretation of studies assessing the effects of nutrition on immune function. This stepwise approach offers a clear rationale for selecting markers for future trials and provides a framework for the interpretation of outcomes. A similar stepwise approach may also be useful to rationalise the selection and interpretation of markers for other physiological processes critical to the maintenance of health and well-being.