Fat emulsions in parenteral nutrition after liver transplantation: The recovery of the allografts RES function and histological observations

Nutritional interventions for liver-transplanted patients

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is a common problem for patients waiting for orthotopic liver transplantation and a risk factor for post-transplant morbidity. The decision to initiate enteral or parenteral nutrition, to which patients and at which time, is still debated. The effects of nutritional supplements given before or after liver transplantation, or both, still remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of enteral and parenteral nutrition as well as oral nutritional supplements administered to patients before and after liver transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (March 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2 of 12, 2012) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (January 1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2012), Science Citation Index Expanded (January 1900 to March 2012), Social Science Citation Index (January 1961 to October 2010), and reference lists of articles. Manufacturers and experts in the field have also been contacted and relevant journals and conference proceedings were handsearched (from 1997 to October 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials of parallel or cross-over design evaluating the beneficial or harmful effects of enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements for patients before and after liver transplantation were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias of the trials and extracted data. Dichotomous data were reported as odds ratios (OR) and continuous data as mean differences (MD) along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Meta-analysis was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity of included interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Four publications did not report outcomes pre-defined in the review protocol, or other clinically relevant outcomes and additional data could not be obtained. Nine trials could provide data for the review. Most of the 13 included trials were small and at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not possible due to clinical heterogeneity of the interventions.No interventions that were likely to be beneficial were identified.For interventions of unknown effectiveness,postoperative enteral nutrition compared with postoperative parenteral nutrition seemed to have no beneficial or harmful effects on clinical outcomes. Parenteral nutrition containing protein, fat, carbohydrates, and branched-chain amino acids with or without alanyl-glutamine seemed to have no beneficial effect on the outcomes of one and three years survival when compared with a solution of 5% dextrose and normal saline. Enteral immunonutrition with Supportan® seemed to have no effect on occurrence of immunological rejection when compared with enteral nutrition with Fresubin®.There is weak evidence that, compared with standard dietary advice, adding a nutritional supplement to usual diet for patients during the waiting time for liver transplantation had an effect on clinical outcomes after liver transplantation. The combination of enteral nutrition plus parenteral nutrition plus glutamine-dipeptide seemed to be beneficial in reducing length of hospital stay after liver transplantation compared with standard parenteral nutrition (mean difference (MD) -12.20 days; 95% CI -20.20 to -4.00). There is weak evidence that the use of parenteral nutrition plus branched-chain amino acids had an effect on clinical outcomes compared with standard parenteral nutrition, but each was beneficial in reducing length of stay in intensive care unit compared to a standard glucose solution (MD -2.40; 95% CI -4.29 to -0.51 and MD -2.20 days; 95% CI -3.79 to -0.61). There is weak evidence that adding omega-3 fish oil to parenteral nutrition reduced the length of hospital stay after liver transplantation (mean difference -7.1 days; 95% CI -13.02 to -1.18) and the length of stay in intensive care unit after liver transplantation (MD -1.9 days; 95% CI -1.9 to -0.22).For interventions unlikely to be beneficial, there is a significant increased risk in acute rejections in malnourished patients with a history of encephalopathy and treated with the nutritional supplement Ensure® compared with usual diet only (MD 0.70 events per patient; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.32).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to identify nutritional interventions for liver transplanted patients that seemed to offer convincing benefits. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and powerful sample sizes are needed.

Nutritional support for liver disease

BACKGROUND

Weight loss and muscle wasting are commonly found in patients with end-stage liver disease. Since there is an association between malnutrition and poor clinical outcome, such patients (or those at risk of becoming malnourished) are often given parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements. These interventions have costs and adverse effects, so it is important to prove that their use results in improved morbidity or mortality, or both.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, and oral nutritional supplements on the mortality and morbidity of patients with underlying liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following computerised databases were searched: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (January 2012). In addition, reference lists of identified trials and review articles and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Trials identified in a previous systematic handsearch of Index Medicus were also considered. Handsearches of a number of medical journals, including abstracts from annual meetings, were done. Experts in the field and manufacturers of nutrient formulations were contacted for potential references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (parallel or cross-over design) comparing groups of patients with any underlying liver disease who received, or did not receive, enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements were identified without restriction on date, language, or publication status. Six categories of trials were separately considered: medical or surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or supplements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The following data were sought in each report: date of publication; geographical location; inclusion and exclusion criteria; the type of nutritional support and constitution of the nutrient formulation; duration of treatment; any nutrition provided to the controls; other interventions provided to the patients; number, sex, age of the study participants; hospital or outpatient status; underlying liver disease; risks of bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome reporting, intention-to-treat analysis, selective outcome reporting, others (vested interests, baseline imbalance, early stopping)); mortality; hepatic morbidity (development or resolution of ascites or hepatic encephalopathy, occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding); quality of life scores; adverse events; infections; lengths of stay in the hospital or intensive care unit; costs; serum bilirubin; postoperative complications (surgical trials only); and nutritional outcomes (nitrogen balance, anthropometric measurements, body weight). The primary outcomes of this review were mortality, hepatic morbidity, quality of life, and adverse events. Data were extracted in duplicate; differences were resolved by consensus.Data for each outcome were combined in a meta-analysis (RevMan 5.1). Estimates were reported using risk ratios or mean differences, along with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Both fixed-effect and random-effects models were employed; fixed-effect models were reported unless one model, but not the other, found a significant difference (in which case both were reported). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic. Subgroup analyses were planned to assess specific liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma), acute or chronic liver diseases, and trials employing standard or branched-chain amino acid formulations (for the hepatic encephalopathy outcomes). Sensitivity analyses were planned to compare trials at low and high risk of bias and trials reported as full papers. The following exploratory analyses were undertaken: 1) medical and surgical trials were combined for each nutritional intervention; 2) intention-to-treat analyses in which missing dichotomous data were imputed as best- and worst-case scenarios; 3) all trials were combined to assess mortality; 4) effects were estimated by absolute risk reductions.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials were identified; only one was at low risk of bias. Most of the analyses failed to find any significant differences. The significant findings that were found were the following: 1) icteric medical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced serum bilirubin (mean difference (MD) -2.86 mg%, 95% CI -3.82 mg% to -1.89 mg%, 3 trials) and better nitrogen balance (MD 3.60 g/day, 95% CI 0.86 g/day to 6.34 g/day, 1 trial); 2) surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced incidence of postoperative ascites only in the fixed-effect model (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.87, 2 trials, I(2) = 70%) and one trial demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications, especially infections (pneumonia in particular); 3) enteral nutrition may have improved nitrogen balance in medical patients (although a combination of the three trials was not possible); 4) one surgical trial of enteral nutrition found a reduction in postoperative complications; and 5) oral nutritional supplements had several effects in medical patients (reduced occurrence of ascites (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88, 3 trials), possibly (significant differences only seen in the fixed-effect model) reduced rates of infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99, 3 trials, I(2) = 14%), and improved resolution of hepatic encephalopathy (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.15 to 12.18, 2 trials, I(2) = 79%). While there was no overall effect of the supplements on mortality in medical patients, the one low risk of bias trial found an increased risk of death in the recipients of the supplements. Three trials of supplements in surgical patients failed to show any significant differences. No new information was derived from the various subgroup or sensitivity analyses. The exploratory analyses were also unrevealing except for a logical conundrum. There was no difference in mortality when all of the trials were combined, but the trials of parenteral nutrition found that those recipients had better survival (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, 10 trials). Either the former observation represents a type II error or the latter one a type I error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data do not compellingly justify the routine use of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements in patients with liver disease. The fact that all but one of these trials were at high risks of bias even casts doubt on the few benefits that were demonstrated. Data from well-designed and executed randomised trials that include an untreated control group are needed before any such recommendation can be made. Future trials have to be powered adequately to see small, but clinically important, differences.

Nutritional support for liver disease

BACKGROUND

Weight loss and muscle wasting are commonly found in patients with end-stage liver disease. Since there is an association between malnutrition and poor clinical outcome, such patients (or those at risk of becoming malnourished) are often given parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements. These interventions have costs and adverse effects, so it is important to prove that their use results in improved morbidity or mortality, or both.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, and oral nutritional supplements on the mortality and morbidity of patients with underlying liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following computerised databases were searched: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (January 2012). In addition, reference lists of identified trials and review articles and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Trials identified in a previous systematic handsearch of Index Medicus were also considered. Handsearches of a number of medical journals, including abstracts from annual meetings, were done. Experts in the field and manufacturers of nutrient formulations were contacted for potential references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (parallel or cross-over design) comparing groups of patients with any underlying liver disease who received, or did not receive, enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements were identified without restriction on date, language, or publication status. Six categories of trials were separately considered: medical or surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or supplements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The following data were sought in each report: date of publication; geographical location; inclusion and exclusion criteria; the type of nutritional support and constitution of the nutrient formulation; duration of treatment; any nutrition provided to the controls; other interventions provided to the patients; number, sex, age of the study participants; hospital or outpatient status; underlying liver disease; risks of bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome reporting, intention-to-treat analysis, selective outcome reporting, others (vested interests, baseline imbalance, early stopping)); mortality; hepatic morbidity (development or resolution of ascites or hepatic encephalopathy, occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding); quality of life scores; adverse events; infections; lengths of stay in the hospital or intensive care unit; costs; serum bilirubin; postoperative complications (surgical trials only); and nutritional outcomes (nitrogen balance, anthropometric measurements, body weight). The primary outcomes of this review were mortality, hepatic morbidity, quality of life, and adverse events. Data were extracted in duplicate; differences were resolved by consensus.Data for each outcome were combined in a meta-analysis (RevMan 5.1). Estimates were reported using risk ratios or mean differences, along with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Both fixed-effect and random-effects models were employed; fixed-effect models were reported unless one model, but not the other, found a significant difference (in which case both were reported). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic. Subgroup analyses were planned to assess specific liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma), acute or chronic liver diseases, and trials employing standard or branched-chain amino acid formulations (for the hepatic encephalopathy outcomes). Sensitivity analyses were planned to compare trials at low and high risk of bias and trials reported as full papers. The following exploratory analyses were undertaken: 1) medical and surgical trials were combined for each nutritional intervention; 2) intention-to-treat analyses in which missing dichotomous data were imputed as best- and worst-case scenarios; 3) all trials were combined to assess mortality; 4) effects were estimated by absolute risk reductions.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials were identified; only one was at low risk of bias. Most of the analyses failed to find any significant differences. The significant findings that were found were the following: 1) icteric medical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced serum bilirubin (mean difference (MD) -2.86 mg%, 95% CI -3.82 mg% to -1.89 mg%, 3 trials) and better nitrogen balance (MD 3.60 g/day, 95% CI 0.86 g/day to 6.34 g/day, 1 trial); 2) surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced incidence of postoperative ascites only in the fixed-effect model (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.87, 2 trials, I(2) = 70%) and one trial demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications, especially infections (pneumonia in particular); 3) enteral nutrition may have improved nitrogen balance in medical patients (although a combination of the three trials was not possible); 4) one surgical trial of enteral nutrition found a reduction in postoperative complications; and 5) oral nutritional supplements had several effects in medical patients (reduced occurrence of ascites (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88, 3 trials), possibly (significant differences only seen in the fixed-effect model) reduced rates of infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99, 3 trials, I(2) = 14%), and improved resolution of hepatic encephalopathy (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.15 to 12.18, 2 trials, I(2) = 79%). While there was no overall effect of the supplements on mortality in medical patients, the one low risk of bias trial found an increased risk of death in the recipients of the supplements. Three trials of supplements in surgical patients failed to show any significant differences. No new information was derived from the various subgroup or sensitivity analyses. The exploratory analyses were also unrevealing except for a logical conundrum. There was no difference in mortality when all of the trials were combined, but the trials of parenteral nutrition found that those recipients had better survival (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, 10 trials). Either the former observation represents a type II error or the latter one a type I error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data do not compellingly justify the routine use of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements in patients with liver disease. The fact that all but one of these trials were at high risks of bias even casts doubt on the few benefits that were demonstrated. Data from well-designed and executed randomised trials that include an untreated control group are needed before any such recommendation can be made. Future trials have to be powered adequately to see small, but clinically important, differences.

Metabolic responses to lipid infusions in patients with liver cirrhosis

Energy expenditure, whole body substrate oxidation rates and arterial substrate concentrations were measured in 14 patients with liver cirrhosis and 13 control subjects before and during sequential infusions of a long chain (LCT) or a medium chain triglyceride emulsion (MCT) without and with concomitant insulin plus glucose infusions. Resting energy expenditure, basal substrate oxidation rates and the arterial concentrations of glucose, lactate, triglycerides and ketones were normal, whereas plasma free fatty acids and glycerol were both increased in patients with liver cirrhosis. The arterial plasma triglyceride and free fatty acid concentrations as well as whole body lipid oxidation rate rose in response to LCT in both groups and the maximum lipid oxidation rate was 1.1 or 1.3 mg/kg fat free mass x min in controls and in cirrhotics, respectively (n.s.). Concomitantly, glucose oxidation rate fell to 65% of basal values in controls (p < 0.01), but remained nearly unchanged in the cirrhotic group (89% of the basal value; n.s.). The increase in plasma ketones was reduced to 67% of control values in liver cirrhosis (p < 0.01). Only a slight effect on energy expenditure was observed in both groups. When compared to controls, liver cirrhosis impaired insulin-induced increases in glucose disposal (-30%, p < 0.01) and in non oxidative glucose metabolism (-93%, p < 0.01). Concomitantly, normal increases in energy expenditure, glucose oxidation rate and the arterial plasma lactate concentrations and normal decreases in lipolysis, lipid oxidation and ketogenesis were observed in patients with liver cirrhosis. When lipids were given together with glucose, energy expenditure and lipid oxidation increased in controls, but glucose was the preferred fuel oxidised and lipid-induced thermogenesis was reduced in the cirrhotic group. Using a 50% MCT-emulsion, plasma free fatty acid concentrations further increased, but energy expenditure and lipid oxidation remained unchanged in both groups and further increases in plasma ketones were only observed in controls. Infusing glycerol in a subgroup of patients showed no thermogenic effect and a reduced glycerol clearance in liver cirrhosis.