He LB, Liu MY, He Y, Guo AL. Nutritional status efficacy of early nutritional support in gastrointestinal care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
World J Gastrointest Surg 2023;
15:953-964. [PMID:
37342843 PMCID:
PMC10277940 DOI:
10.4240/wjgs.v15.i5.953]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Revised: 02/20/2023] [Accepted: 03/31/2023] [Indexed: 05/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Gastrointestinal surgery is a complicated process used to treat many gastrointestinal diseases, and it is associated with a large trauma: Most patients often have different degrees of malnutrition and immune dysfunction before surgery and are prone to various infectious complications during postoperative recovery, thus affecting the efficacy of surgical treatment. Therefore, early postoperative nutritional support can provide essential nutritional supply, restore the intestinal barrier and reduce complication occurrence. However, different studies have shown different conclusions.
AIM
To assess whether early postoperative nutritional support can improve the nutritional status of patients based on literature search and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Articles comparing the effect of early nutritional support and delayed nutritional support were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Springer Link, Ovid, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine databases. Notably, only randomized controlled trial articles were retrieved from the databases (from establishment date to October 2022). The risk of bias of the included articles was determined using Cochrane Risk of Bias V2.0. The outcome indicators, such as albumin, prealbumin, and total protein, after statistical intervention were combined.
RESULTS
Fourteen literatures with 2145 adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery (1138 patients (53.1%) receiving early postoperative nutritional support and 1007 patients (46.9%) receiving traditional nutritional support or delayed nutritional support) were included in this study. Seven of the 14 studies assessed early enteral nutrition while the other seven studies assessed early oral feeding. Furthermore, six literatures had "some risk of bias," and eight literatures had "low risk". The overall quality of the included studies was good. Meta-analysis showed that patients receiving early nutritional support had slightly higher serum albumin levels, than patients receiving delayed nutritional support [MD (mean difference) = 3.51, 95%CI: -0.05 to 7.07, Z = 1.93, P = 0.05]. Also, patients receiving early nutritional support had shorter hospital stay (MD = -2.29, 95%CI: -2.89 to -1.69), Z = -7.46, P < 0.0001) shorter first defecation time (MD = -1.00, 95%CI: -1.37 to -0.64), Z = -5.42, P < 0.0001), and fewer complications (Odd ratio = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.50 to 0.76, Z = -4.52, P < 0.0001) than patients receiving delayed nutritional support.
CONCLUSION
Early enteral nutritional support can slightly shorten the defecation time and overall hospital stay, reduce complication incidence, and accelerate the rehabilitation process of patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.
Collapse