A randomised trial of post-discharge enteral feeding following surgical resection of an upper gastrointestinal malignancy

The impact of jejunostomy feeding on nutritional outcomes after oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Nutritional status is compromised long-term following oesophagectomy. Controversy surrounds the optimal route for nutrition support postoperatively and there is wide variation in the use of feeding jejunostomy tubes.

METHODS

A retrospective service evaluation was conducted for all consecutive adults who underwent oesophagectomy for a cancer diagnosis within a specialist centre between April 2016 and July 2019 (n = 165). Nutritional and clinical outcomes were compared for patients who received jejunostomy feeding (n = 24), versus those who did not (n = 141).

RESULTS

Patients with feeding jejunostomy lost significantly less weight at both 6 and 12 months postoperatively compared to those without jejunostomy (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.001, respectively). This remained statistically significant in multiple regression, controlling for age, gender, preoperative tumour staging and adjuvant treatment (p ≤ 0.001 and p = 0.03, respectively). Median length of home enteral feeding was 10 weeks after discharge in the jejunostomy group. We observed minor jejunostomy tube-related complications in four patients (16.7%). Of those readmitted within 90 days of surgery in the non-jejunostomy group, nutritional failure was a factor in 43.2% of these readmissions. "Rescue tube feeding" was required by 8.5% of the non-jejunostomy group within the first postoperative year, including 6.4% within 90 days of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of short-term supplementary jejunal feeding in addition to oral intake after hospital discharge is beneficial for maintaining weight after oesophagectomy. We suggest a future randomised-controlled trial to confirm these findings.

How quality of life is measured in studies of nutritional intervention: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Nutrition care can positively affect multiple aspects of patient's health; outcomes are commonly evaluated on the basis of their impact on a patient's (i) illness-specific conditions and (ii) health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Our systematic review examined how HRQoL was measured in studies of nutritional interventions. To help future researchers select appropriate Quality of Life Questionnaires (QoLQ), we identified commonly-used instruments and their uses across populations in different regions, of different ages, and with different diseases.

METHODS

We searched EMCare, EMBASE, and Medline databases for studies that had HRQoL and nutrition intervention terms in the title, the abstract, or the MeSH term classifications "quality of life" and any of "nutrition therapy", "diet therapy", or "dietary supplements" and identified 1,113 studies for possible inclusion.We then reviewed titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify studies for final inclusion.

RESULTS

Our review of titles, abstracts, and full texts resulted in the inclusion of 116 relevant studies in our final analysis. Our review identified 14 general and 25 disease-specific QoLQ. The most-used general QoLQ were the Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) in 27 studies and EuroQol 5-Dimension, (EQ-5D) in 26 studies. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ), a cancer-specific QoLQ, was the most frequently used disease-specific QoLQ (28 studies). Disease-specific QoLQ were also identified for nutrition-related diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and dysphagia. Sixteen studies used multiple QoLQ, of which eight studies included both general and disease-specific measures of HRQoL. The most studied diseases were cancer (36 studies) and malnutrition (24 studies). There were few studies focused on specific age-group populations, with only 38 studies (33%) focused on adults 65 years and older and only 4 studies focused on pediatric patients. Regional variation in QoLQ use was observed, with EQ-5D used more frequently in Europe and SF-36 more commonly used in North America.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of QoLQ to measure HRQoL is well established in the literature; both general and disease-specific instruments are now available for use. We advise further studies to examine potential benefits of using both general and disease-specific QoLQ to better understand the impact of nutritional interventions on HRQoL.

Effect of Home Enteral Nutritional Support Compared With Normal Oral Diet in Postoperative Subjects With Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction

We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the influence of a home enteral nutritional support compared with a normal oral diet in postoperative subjects with upper gastrointestinal cancer resection.

Methods

A systematic literature search up to December 2021 was done and 23 studies included 3,010 subjects with upper gastrointestinal cancer resection at the start of the study; 1,556 of them were given home enteral nutritional support and 1,454 were normal oral diet. We calculated the odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs to evaluate the influence of home enteral nutritional support compared with a normal oral diet in postoperative subjects with upper gastrointestinal cancer resection by the dichotomous or continuous methods with a random or fixed-influence model.

Results

Home enteral nutritional support had significantly higher quality of life (MD, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.50–2.67, p < 0.001), better body weight change (MD, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.31–2.43, p < 0.001), higher albumin (MD, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.72–1.82, p < 0.001), and higher pre-albumin (MD, 30.79; 95% CI, 7.29–54.29, p = 0.01) compared to the normal oral diet in subjects with upper gastrointestinal cancer resection. However, home enteral nutritional support had no significant impact on the hemoglobin (MD, 4.64; 95% CI, −4.17 to 13.46, p = 0.30), and complications (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.76–1.40, p = 0.83) compared to the normal oral diet in subjects with upper gastrointestinal cancer resection.

Conclusions

Home enteral nutritional support had a significantly higher quality of life, better body weight change, higher albumin, and higher pre-albumin, and had no significant impact on the hemoglobin and complications compared to the normal oral diet in subjects with upper gastrointestinal cancer resection. Further studies are required.

Quality of Life of Cancer Patients Receiving Enteral Nutrition: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Most studies confirm the beneficial effects of enteral nutrition on the quality of life, but some studies indicate an inverse association and its detrimental impacts. However, there are insufficient data on the effects of enteral nutrition on the quality of life of cancer patients. This systematic review aimed to describe the influence of applied enteral nutrition on the quality of life of cancer patients, based on the results of randomized controlled trials. It was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021261226) and conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The searching procedure was conducted using the PubMed and Web of Science databases, as well as Cochrane Library, and it included studies published until June 2021. It was conducted to select randomized controlled trials assessing the influence of enteral nutrition (compared with the other model of nutrition) on the quality of life of cancer patients. A general number of 761 records were screened and a final number of 16 studies were included in the systematic review. The studies were included and assessed by two independent researchers, while the risk of bias was analyzed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS). Studies compared patients treated with and without enteral nutrition, patients treated with various methods of enteral nutrition or with enteral diets of various content, as well as patients treated with enteral and parenteral nutrition. Within the included studies, the majority were conducted in patients with cancers located in various parts of the body, or diverse areas within the gastrointestinal system, while some studies were conducted in specific populations of patients with a defined cancer location—esophagus, stomach, or ovary. The duration of applied enteral nutrition within the included studies was diversified—from two weeks or less to half a year or even more. The vast majority of studies used well-known and validated tools to assess the quality of life, either developed for a specific group of head/neck, esophagus/stomach, and ovary cancer patients or developed for more general patient populations. Most studies concerning patients treated with and without enteral nutrition supported applying enteral nutrition, which was concluded in seven studies out of ten (including four studies with a low risk of bias). The other important observations to be emphasized—formulated based on the studies with a low risk of bias—presented the role of oral supportive nutrition guided by a dietitian, as well as the beneficial role of enteral and parenteral nutrition, combined. In spite of a relatively low number of randomized controlled trials assessing the influence of enteral nutrition on the quality of life of cancer patients, which should be considered as a limitation, the results were promising. Most studies supported the positive influence of enteral nutrition on the quality of life, either assessed based on the psychological measures of the quality of life or by considering the other potential determinants (e.g., malnutrition, complications, etc.). Taking this into account, enteral nutrition should be applied whenever possible, both to prevent and treat malnutrition in cancer patients. However, considering the limited number of studies conducted so far, further research conducted in homogenic populations of patients is necessary.

Home enteral nutrition and oral nutritional supplements in postoperative patients with upper gastrointestinal malignancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The safety and potential benefits of home enteral route nutrition (HERN), referring specifically to home enteral nutrition (HEN) and oral nutritional supplements (ONS) in this article, after upper gastrointestinal (GI) resection are inconsistent.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of HERN on nutritional status, complications, and quality of life (QOL) after upper GI resection.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Nine databases were searched from inception to October 2019. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of HERN after upper gastrointestinal resection were included. Relative risk/weighted mean difference/standardized mean difference (RR/WMD/SMD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models.

RESULTS

Overall, 15 RCTs involving 1059 patients were included. Compared with normal oral diet, HERN significantly prevented weight loss (-3.95 vs -5.82 kg; SMD: 1.98 kg; 95% CI: 1.24-2.73); improved added-level of albumin (3.48 vs 2.41 g/L; SMD: 1.36 g/L; 95% CI: 0.81-1.91), hemoglobin (6.54 vs -1.29 g/L; WMD: 7.45 g/L; 95% CI: 5.05-9.86), pre-albumin (37.59 vs 7.35 mg/L; WMD: 21.6 mg/L; 95% CI: 5.96-37.24), and transferrin (63.08 vs 50.45 mg/L; WMD: 16.44 mg/L; 95% CI: 13.51-19.38); and reduced the incidence of malnutrition or latent malnutrition (RR = 0.54; P < 0.01). Subgroup analysis based on the approach of HERN showed that weight loss in the HEN subgroup was significantly lower than that of the control group (WMD = 2.69, P < 0.01), while there was no significant difference between the ONS subgroup and the control group (P = 0.1). The same results were found in albumin. Physical function (WMD: 5.29; 95% CI: 1.86-8.73) and fatigue (WMD: -8.59; 95% CI: -12.61, -4.58) dimensions in QOL were significantly better in the HERN group. No significant differences in gastrointestinal and tube-related complications.

CONCLUSION

HERN improved nutritional status and some dimensions of QOL in upper GI malignancy patients after surgery, without increasing complications. Subgroup analysis showed that HEN experienced more benefits than ONS.

Routine use of feeding jejunostomy in oesophageal cancer resections: results of a survey in England

Nutrition and post-operative feeding in oesophageal cancer resections for enhanced recovery remain a controversial subject. Feeding jejunostomy tubes (FJT) have been used post-operatively to address the subject but evidence to support its routine use is contentious. There is currently no data on FJT use in England for oesophageal cancer resections. Knowledge regarding current FJT usage, and rationale for its use may provide a snapshot of the trend and current standing on FJT use by resectional units in England. A standardised survey was sent electronically to all oesophageal resectional units in the United Kingdom (UK) between October 2016 and January 2018. In summary, the questionnaire probes into current FJT use, rationale for its usage, consideration of cessation of its use, and rationale of cessation of its use for units not using FJT. The resectional units were identified using the National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit (NOGCA) progress report 2016 and 1 selected resectional unit from Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, respectively. Performance data of those units were collected from the 2017 NOGCA report. Out of 40 units that were eligible, 32 (80.0%) centres responded. The responses show a heterogeneity of FJT use across the resectional centres. Most centres (56.3%) still place FJT routinely with 2 of 18 (11.1%) were considering stopping its routine use. FJT was considered a mandatory adjunct to chemotherapy in 3 (9.4%) centres. FJT was not routinely used in 9 (28.1%) of centres with 5 of 9 (55.6%) reported previous complications and 4 of 9 (44.4%) cited using other forms of nutrition supplementation as factors for discontinuing FJT use. There were 5 (15.6%) centres with divided practice among its consultants. Of those 2 of 5 (40.0%) were considering stopping FJT use, and hence, a total of 4 of 23 (17.4%) of units are now considering stopping routine FJT use. In conclusion, the wider practice of FJT use in the UK remains heterogenous. More research regarding the optimal post-operative feeding regimen needs to be undertaken.

Safety, feasibility, and effect of an enhanced nutritional support pathway including extended preoperative and home enteral nutrition in patients undergoing enhanced recovery after esophagectomy: a pilot randomized clinical trial

The aims of this pilot study are to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of conducting an enhanced nutritional support pathway including extended preoperative nutritional support and one month home enteral nutrition (HEN) for patients who underwent enhanced recovery after esophagectomy. We implemented extended preoperative nutritional support and one month HEN after discharge for patients randomized into an enhanced nutrition group and implemented standard nutritional support for patients randomized into a conventional nutrition group. Except the nutritional support program, both group patients underwent the same standardized enhanced recovery after surgery programs of esophagectomy based on published guidelines. Patients were assessed at preoperative day, postoperative day 7 (POD7), and POD30 for perioperative outcomes and nutritional status. To facilitate the determination of an effect size for subsequent appropriately powered randomized clinical trials and assess the effectiveness, the primary outcome we chose was the weight change before and after esophagectomy. Other outcomes including body mass index (BMI), lean body mass (LBM), appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI), nutrition-related complications, and quality of life (QoL) were also analyzed. The intention-to-treat analysis of the 50 randomized patients showed that there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics. The weight (-2.03 ± 2.28 kg vs. -4.05 ± 3.13 kg, P = 0.012), BMI (-0.73 ± 0.79 kg/m2 vs. -1.48 ± 1.11 kg/m2, P = 0.008), and ASMI (-1.10 ± 0.37 kg/m2 vs. -1.60 ± 0.66 kg/m2, P = 0.010) loss of patients in the enhanced nutrition group were obviously decreased compared to the conventional nutrition group at POD30. In particular, LBM (48.90 ± 9.69 kg vs. 41.96 ± 9.37 kg, p = 0.031) and ASMI (7.56 ± 1.07 kg/m2 vs. 6.50 ± 0.97 kg/m2, P = 0.003) in the enhanced nutrition group were significantly higher compared to the conventional nutrition group at POD30, despite no significant change between pre- and postoperation. In addition, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 scores revealed that enhanced nutritional support improved the QoL of patients in physical function (75.13 ± 9.72 vs. 68.33 ± 7.68, P = 0.009) and fatigue symptom (42.27 ± 9.93 vs. 49.07 ± 11.33, P = 0.028) compared to conventional nutritional support. This pilot study demonstrated that an enhanced nutritional support pathway including extended preoperative nutritional support and HEN was feasible, safe, and might be beneficial to patients who underwent enhanced recovery after esophagectomy. An appropriately powered trial is warranted to confirm the efficacy of this approach.

Whole rat stomach decellularisation using a detergent-enzymatic protocol

BACKGROUND

Conditions leading to reduced gastric volume are difficult to manage and are associated to poor quality-of-life. Stomach augmentation using a tissue-engineered stomach is a potential solution to restore adequate physiology and food reservoir. Aim of this study was to evaluate the decellularisation of whole rat stomach using a detergent-enzymatic protocol.

METHODS

Stomachs harvested from rats were decellularised through luminal and vascular cannulation using 24-h detergent-enzymatic treatment and completely characterized by appropriate staining, DNA and Extracellular matrix -component quantifications.

RESULTS

The detergent-enzymatic protocol allows a complete decellularisation of the gastric tissue, with a complete removal of the DNA with two cycles as confirmed by both quantifications and histological analysis. Extracellular matrix components, collagen, fibronectin, laminin and elastin, were optimally preserved by the treatment, while glycosaminoglycans were reduced.

CONCLUSION

Gastric tissue can be efficiently decellularised. Scaffolds retained original structure and important components that could enhance integration with other tissues for in vivo transplant. The use of naturally derived material could be potentially considered for the treatment of both congenital and acquired conditions.