Short-term preoperative supplementation of an immunoenriched diet does not improve clinical outcome in well-nourished patients undergoing abdominal cancer surgery

Trends and development in perioperative enteral nutrition: a systematic bibliometric analysis

Background

This research aims to explore the intellectual landscape of studies in perioperative enteral nutrition (PEN) and identify trends and research frontiers in the field.

Methods

Scientometric research was conducted through the analysis of bibliographic records from the Web of Science Core Collection Database for the period 2014-2023. Analyses performed using CiteSpace software included cooperation network analysis, reference co-citation analysis, and keywords co-occurrence analysis.

Results

The analysis included 3,671 valid records in the final dataset. Findings indicate an upward trend in annual publications, with the United States leading in research output and Harvard University as the top publishing institution. The Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition was identified as the most productive journal. Notable research hotspots include enhanced recovery after surgery, early enteral nutrition, intestinal failure, short bowel syndrome, abdominal surgery. Evidence-based articles have emerged as the predominant literature type. Future research trends are anticipated to focus on gut microbiota and patients with congenital heart disease.

Conclusion

Our study provides a comprehensive analysis of the publication volume, contributions by country/region and institutions, journal outlets, and reference and keyword clusters in the field of PEN over the decade. The findings provide valuable insights for researchers, policymakers, and clinicians, helping them comprehend the research landscape, identify gaps, and shape future research directions in this field.

Preoperative nutrition therapy in people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND

Poor preoperative nutritional status has been consistently linked to an increase in postoperative complications and worse surgical outcomes. We updated a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preoperative nutritional therapy compared to usual care in people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trial registries on 28 March 2023. We searched reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery and receiving preoperative nutritional therapy, including parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition or oral nutrition supplements, compared to usual care. We only included nutritional therapy that contained macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate and fat) and micronutrients, and excluded studies that evaluated single nutrients. We included studies regardless of the nutritional status of participants, that is, well-nourished participants, participants at risk of malnutrition, or mixed populations. We excluded studies in people undergoing pancreatic and liver surgery. Our primary outcomes were non-infectious complications, infectious complications and length of hospital stay. Our secondary outcomes were nutritional aspects, quality of life, change in macronutrient intake, biochemical parameters, 30-day perioperative mortality and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 1 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs reporting 19 comparisons (2164 participants). Seven studies were new for this update. Participants' ages ranged from 21 to 79 years, and 62% were men. Three RCTs used parenteral nutrition, two used enteral nutrition, eight used immune-enhancing nutrition and six used standard oral nutrition supplements. All studies included mixed groups of well-nourished and malnourished participants; they used different methods to identify malnutrition and reported this in different ways. Not all the included studies were conducted within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme, which is now current clinical practice in most hospitals undertaking GI surgery. We were concerned about risk of bias in all the studies and 14 studies were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We are uncertain if parenteral nutrition has any effect on the number of participants who had a non-infectious complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.02; 3 RCTs, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence); infectious complication (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.80; 3 RCTs, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 5.49 days, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.96; 2 RCTs, 135 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the enteral nutrition studies reported non-infectious complications as an outcome. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of enteral nutrition on the number of participants with infectious complications after surgery (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; 2 RCTs, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 5.10 days, 95% CI -1.03 to 11.23; 2 RCTs, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Immune-enhancing nutrition compared to controls may result in little to no effect on the number of participants experiencing a non-infectious complication (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.00; 8 RCTs, 1020 participants; low-certainty evidence), infectious complications (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.04; 7 RCTs, 925 participants; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD -1.22 days, 95% CI -2.80 to 0.35; 6 RCTs, 688 participants; low-certainty evidence). Standard oral nutrition supplements may result in little to no effect on number of participants with a non-infectious complication (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 5 RCTs, 473 participants; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD -0.65 days, 95% CI -2.33 to 1.03; 3 RCTs, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral nutrition supplements on the number of participants with an infectious complication (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.27; 5 RCTs, 473 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis based on malnourished and weight-losing participants found oral nutrition supplements may result in a slight reduction in infections (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 184 participants). Studies reported some secondary outcomes, but not consistently. Complications associated with central venous catheters occurred in RCTs involving parenteral nutrition. Adverse events in the enteral nutrition, immune-enhancing nutrition and standard oral nutrition supplements RCTs included nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to determine if parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, immune-enhancing nutrition or standard oral nutrition supplements have any effect on the clinical outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence. There is some evidence that standard oral nutrition supplements may have no effect on complications. Sensitivity analysis showed standard oral nutrition supplements probably reduced infections in weight-losing or malnourished participants. Further high-quality multicentre research considering the ERAS programme is required and further research in low- and middle-income countries is needed.

Outcome Heterogeneity in Prehabilitation Trials-Are We Comparing Apples and Oranges?

INTRODUCTION

Over the last decade, the number of prehabilitation randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has increased significantly. Therefore, this review aimed to describe the outcomes reported in prehabilitation RCTs in patients undergoing cancer surgery.

METHODS

A search was conducted in Embase, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception to July 2021. We included RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions on postoperative complications and length of hospital stay in adult oncology patients who underwent thoracic and gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The verbatim outcomes reported in each article were extracted, and each outcome was assessed to determine whether it was defined and measured using a validated tool. Verbatim outcomes were grouped into standardized outcomes and categorized into domains. The quality of outcome reporting in each identified article was assessed using the Harman tool (score range 0-6, where 0 indicated the poorest quality).

RESULTS

A total of 74 RCTs were included, from which 601 verbatim outcomes were extracted. Only 110 (18.3%) of the verbatim outcomes were defined and 270 (44.9%) were labeled as either "primary" or "secondary" outcomes. Verbatim outcomes were categorized into 119 standardized outcomes and assigned into one of five domains (patient-reported outcomes, surgical outcomes, physical/functional outcomes, disease activity, and intervention delivery). Surgical outcomes were the most common outcomes reported (n = 71 trials, 95.9%). The overall quality of the reported outcomes was poor across trials (median score: 2.0 [IQR = 0.00-3.75]).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation RCTs display considerable heterogeneity in outcome reporting, and low outcome reporting quality. The development of standardized core outcome sets may help improve article quality and enhance the clinical utility of prehabilitation following cancer surgery.

Mismatch of populations between randomised controlled trials of perioperative interventions in major abdominal surgery and current clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Demographics of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are changing. External validity of relevant RCTs may be limited by participants not resembling patients encountered in clinical practice. We aimed to characterise differences in age, weight, BMI, and ASA grade between participants in perioperative trials in major abdominal surgery and patients in a reference real-world clinical practice sample. The secondary aim was to investigate whether time since trial publication was associated with increasing mismatch between these groups.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched for multicentre RCTs from inception to September 2022. Studies of perioperative interventions in adults were included. Studies that limited enrolment based on age, weight, BMI, or ASA status were excluded. We compared trial cohort age, weight, BMI, and ASA distribution to those of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery at our tertiary referral hospital during September 2021 to September 2022. We used a local, single-institution reference sample to reflect the reality of clinical practice (i.e. patients treated by a clinician in their own hospital, rather than averaged nationally). Mismatch was defined using comparison of summary characteristics and ad hoc criteria based on differences relevant to predicted mortality risk after surgery.

RESULTS

One-hundred and six trials (44,499 participants) were compared to a reference cohort of 2792 clinical practice patients. Trials were published a median (IQR [range]) 13.4 (5-20 [0-35]) years ago. A total of 94.3% of trials were mismatched on at least one characteristic (age, weight, BMI, ASA). Recruitment of ASA 3 + participants in trials increased over time, and recruitment of ASA 1 participants decreased over time (Spearman's Rho 0.58 and - 0.44, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients encountered in our current local clinical practice are significantly different from those in our defined set of perioperative RCTs. Older trials recruit more low-risk than high-risk participants-trials may thus 'expire' over time. These trials may not be generalisable to current patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, and meta-analyses or guidelines incorporating these trials may therefore be similarly non-applicable. Comparison to local, rather than national cohorts, is important for meaningful on-the-ground evidence-based decision-making.

The Impact of Peri-operative Enteral Immunonutrition on Post-operative Complications in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Immunonutrition (IMN) in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery remains under-utilised and contentious. Despite previous meta-analysis reporting benefit, most recent randomised control trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate this and have recommended against its routine use. A contemporary meta-analysis may contribute to the recommendations for immunonutrition use and help select which patients may benefit. The objective of this study was to review IMN and its impact on post-operative outcomes in GI cancer surgery, exploring its role in both malnourished and non-malnourished populations, the optimal dose to use, cancer type of patients using IMN and the timing of IMN relative to the peri-operative period.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The EMBASE and Medline databases were searched from 2000 to 2022 for RCTs evaluating IMN in adults undergoing GI cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included (22 pre-operative IMN studies, 11 peri-operative IMN trials and 9 post-operative IMN trials; 4 trials had multiple IMN protocols) that reported on 3793 patients. The main outcome of post-operative infectious complications was reduced with IMN [odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.72]. This association was significant in subgroup analysis only with pre-operative and peri-operative administration and in trials including upper GI cancers, colorectal cancer and 'mixed GI' cancer populations, and significance was independent of nutritional status. IMN in pooled analysis reduced surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.81), anastomotic leak (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.93) and length of stay (LOS) by 1.94 days (95% CI - 3 to - 0.87).

CONCLUSION

Immunonutrition was associated with reduced post-operative complications. Peri-operative administration may be the preferred strategy in reducing infectious complications, anastomotic leak, SSI and LOS.

Associations between omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids supplementation and surgical prognosis in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Surgical resection remains the primary treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) have been reported to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing gastrointestinal tumor surgery. This meta-analysis aims to explore the efficacy of n-3 PUFAs on GI cancer patients undergoing surgery.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library databases, EMBASE (until December 2021) was conducted. PRISMA checklist was followed. The data were analyzed by RevMan v5.3.0.

Results

A total of ten RCTs articles including 663 patients were studied. The analysis demonstrated that the n-3 PUFAs group significantly reduced levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) (P = 0.001), C-reactive protein (CRP) (P < 0.00001), tumor necrosis factor-ɑ (TNF-α) (P = 0.0003) compared with the control group. and higher levels of CD4⁺T cells (P = 0.03), CD8⁺T cells (P = 0.02) and CD4⁺/CD8⁺ratio (P = 0.03) compared with the control group. but there was no significant difference in infection complications rate (P = 0.50) and the level of prealbumin (P = 0.80), albumin (P = 0.21), retinol-binding protein(P = 0.80) between the two groups. In addition, the n-3 PUFAs group significantly reduced the length of hospital stay (P = 0.007).

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis shows that n-3 PUFAs can effectively improve the immune function of patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery, reduce inflammatory response and reduce the length of hospital stay, But it has no significant impact on the incidence of infectious-related complications and the level of nutrient protein.

A Translational Randomized Trial of Perioperative Arginine Immunonutrition on Natural Killer Cell Function in Colorectal Cancer Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

Surgery results in severe impairment of natural killer (NK) cell cytotoxicity (NKC) and activity (NKA, cytokine secretion), and a dramatic drop in arginine levels. Postoperative immunosuppression is associated with increased complications and recurrence. Perioperative arginine is reported to reduce postoperative complications. Because arginine modulates NK cell function, this study aimed to determine whether perioperative consumption of arginine-enriched supplements (AES) can improve NK cell function in colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery patients.

METHODS

This study randomized 24 CRC patients to receive the AES or isocaloric/isonitrogenous control supplement three times a day for five days before and after surgery. The AES contained 4.2 g of arginine per dose (12.6 g/day). The primary objective was to determine whether AES improved NKC by 50 % compared with the control group after surgery.

RESULTS

On surgery day (SD) 1, NKC was significantly reduced postoperatively in the control group by 50 % (interquartile range [IQR], 36-55 %; p = 0.02) but not in the AES group (25 % reduction; IQR, 28-75 %; p = 0.3). Furthermore, AES had no benefit in terms of NKA or NK cell number. Compliance was much greater preoperatively (>91 %) than postoperatively (<46 %). However, despite excellent preoperative compliance, arginine was rapidly cleared from the blood within 4 h after consumption and therefore, did not prevent the postoperative drop in arginine.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral consumption of arginine immunonutrition resulted in a modest improvement in NKC after surgery but was unable to prevent postoperative arginine depletion or the suppression of NKA (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02987296).

Effect of Enteral Immunonutrition in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The efficacy of enteral immunonutrition (EIN) in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery remains debatable. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of EIN administration in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer.

Methods

From January 2000 to January 2022, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were thoroughly searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with EIN versus standard diet or no supplement in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Overall complications and infectious complications were the primary outcomes. The secondary results were non-infectious complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and enteral nutrition-related complications.

Results

Thirty-five studies reporting 3,692 patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer (including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer, periampullary cancer, or pancreatic cancer) were included. Compared with the control group, EIN group had a significantly decreased incidence of overall complications (RR = 0.79, p < 0.001). Infectious complications in patients who received EIN were considerably lower than in the control group (RR = 0.66, p < 0.001). Compared to the control group, the incidence of surgical site infection, abdominal abscess, anastomotic leakage, bacteremia, duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and duration of antibiotic therapy was significantly lower in the specific infectious complications treated with EIN. Still, there was no significant difference between the two groups with other infectious complications. Moreover, a substantial shortening in the length of hospital stay was shown in EIN group compared with the control group. Still, no significant effect of EIN was demonstrated in non-infectious complicatios and mortality. The enteral nutrition-related complications had no significant difference between two groups.

Conclusions

EIN is safe and effective in reducing overall complications, infectious complications, and hospital stay in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery (including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer, periampullary cancer, or pancreatic cancer).

Preoperative Nutritional Optimization of the Oncology Patient: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is common among patients with cancer and is a known risk factor for poor postoperative outcomes; however, preoperative nutritional optimization guidelines are lacking in this high-risk population. The objective of this study was to review the evidence regarding preoperative nutritional optimization of patients undergoing general surgical operations for the treatment of cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was performed across the Ovid (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases. Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials, observational studies, reviews, and meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2020. Included studies evaluated clinical outcomes after preoperative nutritional interventions among adult patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Data extraction was performed using a template developed and tested by the study team.

RESULTS

A total of 5,505 publications were identified, of which 69 studies were included for data synthesis after screening and full text review. These studies evaluated preoperative nutritional counseling, protein-calorie supplementation, immunonutrition supplementation, and probiotic or symbiotic supplementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative nutritional counseling and immunonutrition supplementation should be considered for patients undergoing surgical treatment of gastrointestinal malignancy. For malnourished patients, protein-calorie supplementation should be considered, and for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery, probiotics or symbiotic supplementation should be considered.

Impact of Oral Immunonutrition on Postoperative Morbidity in Digestive Oncologic Surgery: A Nation-wide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the present study was to assess the effect of preoperative immunonutrition on a nationwide scale.

BACKGROUND

According to international guidelines, immunonutrition should be prescribed before major oncologic digestive surgery to decrease postoperative morbidity. Nevertheless, this practice remains controversial.

METHODS

We used a prospective national health database named "Echantillon généraliste des Bénéficiaires." Patients were selected with ICD10 codes of cancer and digestive surgery procedures from 2012 to 2016. Two groups were identified: with reimbursement of immunonutrition 45 days before surgery (IN-group) or not (no-IN-group). Primary outcome was 90-day severe morbidity. Secondary outcomes were postoperative length of stay (LOS) and overall survival. Logistic regression and survival analysis adjusted with IPW method were performed.

RESULTS

One thousand seven hundred seventy-one patients were included. The proportion of different cancers was as follows: 72% patients were included in the colorectal group, 14% in the hepato-pancreato-biliary group, and 12% in the upper gastrointestinal group. Patients from the IN-group (n = 606, 34%) were younger (67.1 ± 11.8 vs 69.2 ± 12.2 years, P < 0.001), with increased use of other oral nutritional supplements (49.5% vs 31.8%, P < 0.001) and had more digestive anastomoses (89.4% vs 83.0%, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups for 90-day severe morbidity [odds ratio (OR): 0.91, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.73-1.14] or in survival (hazard ratio: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.73-1.08). LOS were shorter in the IN-group [-1.26 days, 95% CI: -2.40 to -0.10)].

CONCLUSION

The preoperative use of immunonutrition before major oncologic digestive surgery was not associated with any significant difference in morbidity or mortality. However, the LOS was significantly shorter in the IN-group.

[de la evidencia y algoritmo adaptado Immunonutrition in fast-track surgical patients - Evidence review and adapted algorithm]

Introduction

Surgical stress predisposes patients to have immune dysfunction and an increased risk of infection. Malnourished surgical patients have higher postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, higher readmission rates, and higher hospital costs. The use of an immunomodulatory formula is associated in the ESPEN guidelines with a reduction in wound healing problems, suture failure, and infectious and global complications. Several authors have suggested that, since most clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of immunonutrition have been carried out in a traditional perioperative setting, it would be interesting to investigate its efficacy in a more controlled setting, such as in the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery) protocol. The objective of this work was: a) to define the role that immunonutrition should play in ERAS protocols based on the best scientific evidence available; b) to analyze the difficulties that continue to exist in real-life clinical practice to screen the nutritional risk of patients; c) to make a proposal of algorithms adapted to the characteristics of our environment regarding the screening, assessment, and nutritional treatment of surgical patients in fast-track surgery.

Prehabilitation Programs Improve Exercise Capacity Before and After Surgery in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery Patients: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prehabilitation programs or interventions are employed prior to surgery with the aim to optimize the patient before surgery and to improve their physiologic ability to recover from surgery. Components of these programs often include exercise, nutritional supplementation, and psychological interventions. This meta-analysis examines the impact of prehabilitation programs on both surgical and patient outcomes among gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients undergoing surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify all published randomized control trials (RCT) evaluating the use of prehabilitation programs (with one or more interventions) in GI cancer surgery patients. Outcomes assessed were 6-min walk distance (6MWD), postoperative complications, major complications (as defined as Clavien Dindo grade ≥ 3), surgical site infections (SSI), pneumonia, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and mortality.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs including 929 patients (475 prehabilitation program and 454 controls) were analyzed. Prehabilitation programs were associated with statistically significant improvements in 6MWD between baseline and immediately prior to surgery (MD = 32.542 m; 95% CI, 10.774-54.310; p = 0.003) and 4-8 weeks after surgery (MD = 48.220 m; 95% CI, 1.532-94.908; p = 0.043) compared with patients who did not receive prehabilitation programs. Similar rates of postoperative complications, major complications, SSI, pneumonia, 30-day readmission, and mortality, as well as LOS, were observed (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation programs improve exercise capacity both before and after surgery, with no significant difference in LOS, or rates of postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and mortality. Future studies assessing the different components of prehabilitation programs to identify the most beneficial interventions are required.

The effects of nutritional support on selected laboratory parameters in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing surgical resection of the colon

The benefit of the nutritional support provided to patients with colorectal cancer who have undergone the planned resection of the colon in relation to the laboratory markers of nutrition was examined. And it is currently being discussed, that pre-operative optimization of nutritional status reduces the incidence of post-operative complications in cancer patients and regulates selected laboratory parameters. This was a retrospective study where the treatment group (n = 52) received the enteral nutritional support 21 days prior to the scheduled surgery and the other group was formed of patients without preoperative enteral nutrition (n = 52). Laboratory parameters (CRP, leukocytes, albumin, total proteins) were monitored for at least one month before the planned surgery and just before the operation, and the effect of supplemental enteral nutrition on selected laboratory parameters between these two groups was compared. In a group of patients with enteral nutrition, serum albumin levels increased significantly, while CRP was significantly reduced during preoperative enteral nutrition (albumin S-ALB from 35.42 to 37.48, p = 0.0008, C reactive protein from 26.5 to 14.092, p = 0.0007). Nutritional support 21 days prior to surgery in oncological patients resulted in an improvement in laboratory parameters compared to the group of patients without nutritional enteric support. Malnutrition in patients who are candidates for major surgical intervention is a risk factor for postoperative morbidity and mortality. However, further studies are required to verify the effectiveness of this early nutritional intervention on medium and long-term clinical parameters in different types of cancer.

Effects of nutritional support on the clinical outcomes of well-nourished patients with cancer: a meta-analysis

The effects of nutritional support on well-nourished patients have been investigated, but the results were inconsistent among different articles. We performed the meta-analysis to examine the existing evidence. We systematically retrieved articles from PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library to identify the evidence of nutritional support for well-nourished patients. Methodological quality assessment was assessed based on the Cochrane Handbook and GRADE. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and one non-RCT with 1400 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Nutritional support, particularly immunonutrition, was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative infectious complications (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57-0.96), and a decreasing trends in morbidity and the length of the hospital stay (LOS) were observed. However, the mortality rates were comparable between two groups. The quality of evidence was moderate to high. Nutritional support, particularly immunonutrition supplementation, is likely to reduce infectious complications, morbidity and LOS without influencing mortality and may be a safe and preferred choice for well-nourished patients undergoing surgery for cancer. However, additional RCTs are warranted to determine the effects of nutritional support on well-nourished patients.

A Narrative Review About Prehabilitation in Surgery: Current Situation and Future Perspectives

Prehabilitation has a multimodal conception based on three fundamental pillars: improvement of the patient's physical condition, nutritional optimization and cognitive intervention to reduce stress and anxiety, as well as other measures such as smoking cessation and correction of anemia. The aim of prehabilitation programs is to optimize the patient from the moment of diagnosis until the surgical intervention in order to reduce postoperative complications. As in the case of multimodal rehabilitation protocols, the actions of prehabilitation programs have synergistic effects, that is, small changes that, by themselves, do not have clinical significance but when added up, they produce a significant improvement in the postoperative evolution of patients. Although more studies are required to evaluate the impact of these programs on patients groups with different pathologies, interventions and risk factors, their progressive implementation is necessary in the daily clinical practice of our patients. The objective of this narrative review is to evaluate the available evidence about prehabilitation in surgery, focusing on current established strategies, knowledge gaps and future research.

Effects of enteral nutritional rich in n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids on the nutritional status of gastrointestinal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Postoperative malnutrition is a major issue among gastrointestinal cancer patients. Because n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) have immunological benefits, n-3 PUFAs are widely used in oral nutritional supplements (ONS). However, n-3 PUFAs in ONS reduced patients' compliance with ONS and affected the role of ONS in maintaining the postoperative nutritional status of patients. The aim of this study was to systematically explore the benefits of enteral nutrition rich in n-3 PUFAs in maintaining the nutritional status of patients after gastrointestinal surgery. Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and VIP databases were searched through March 16, 2019. The references of related reviews and studies were assessed up to March 16, 2019. The effect sizes from individual studies were calculated as the standardized mean difference (SMD), mean difference (MD), and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). A total of 11 studies (n = 977) were included. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we observed that enteral supplementation of n-3 PUFAs had no significant effect on weight (MD, 1.09; 95% CI, -0.90, 3.08), body mass index (MD, 0.55; 95% CI, -1.45, 2.54), albumin (SMD, 0.39; 95% CI, -0.10, 0.87), wound infections (RR, 0.87, 95% CI, 0.57, 1.33), or pneumonia (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.60, 1.59) in gastrointestinal cancer patients. Thus, compared with enteral nutritional without n-3 PUFAs, enteral nutritional rich in n-3 PUFAs has no significant effects on nutritional status, incidence of pneumonia, or wound infections among gastrointestinal cancer patients during postoperative convalescence.

Immunonutrition vs Standard Nutrition for Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Part 1)

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of immunonutrition vs standard nutrition in cancer patients treated with surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science were searched. Sixty-one randomized controlled trials were included. Immunonutrition was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative infectious complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64-0.79]), including a reduced risk of wound infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60-0.87]), respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]), and urinary tract infection (RR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.51-0.94]) as well as a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage (RR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.91]) and a reduced hospital stay (MD -2.12 days [95% CI -2.72 to -1.52]). No differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to sepsis or all-cause mortality. Subgroup analyses revealed that receiving arginine + nucleotides + ω-3 fatty acids and receiving enteral immunonutrition reduced the rates of wound infection and respiratory tract infection. The application of immunonutrition at 25-30 kcal/kg/d for 5-7 days reduced the rate of respiratory tract infection. Perioperative immunonutrition reduced the rate of wound infection. For malnourished patients, immunonutrition shortened the hospitalization time. Therefore, immunonutrition reduces postoperative infection complications and shortens hospital stays but does not reduce all-cause mortality. Patients who are malnourished before surgery who receive arginine + nucleotides + ω-3 fatty acids (25-30 kcal/kg/d) via the gastrointestinal tract during the perioperative period (5-7 days) may show better clinical efficacy.

Biomarkers for Evaluating the Inflammation Status in Patients with Cancer

Inflammation can be a causative factor for carcinogenesis or can result from a consequence of cancer progression. Moreover, cancer therapeutic interventions can also induce an inflammatory response. Various inflammatory parameters are used to assess the inflammatory status during cancer treatment. It is important to select the most optimal biomarker among these parameters. Additionally, suitable biomarkers must be examined if there are no known parameters. We briefly reviewed the published literature for the use of inflammatory parameters in the treatment of patients with cancer. Most studies on inflammation evaluated the correlation between host characteristics, effect of interventions, and clinical outcomes. Additionally, the levels of C-reactive protein, albumin, lymphocytes, and platelets were the most commonly used laboratory parameters, either independently or in combination with other laboratory parameters and clinical characteristics. Furthermore, the immune parameters are classically examined using flow cytometry, immunohistochemical staining, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay techniques. However, gene expression profiling can aid in assessing the overall peri-interventional immune status. The checklists of guidelines, such as STAndards for Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy and REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies should be considered when designing studies to investigate the inflammatory parameters. Finally, the data should be interpreted after adjusting for clinically important variables, such as age and cancer stage.

The Impact of Preoperative Immune Modulating Nutrition on Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To define the influence of preoperative immune modulating nutrition (IMN) on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer.

BACKGROUND

Although studies have shown that perioperative IMN may reduce postoperative infectious complications, many of these have included patients with benign and malignant disease, and the optimal timing of such an intervention is not clear.

METHODS

The Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched from 2000 to 2018, for prospective randomized controlled trials evaluating preoperative oral or enteral IMN in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. The primary endpoint was the development of postoperative infectious complications. Secondary endpoints included postoperative noninfectious complications, length of stay, and up to 30-day mortality. The analysis was performed using RevMan v5.3 software.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies reporting on 1387 patients (715 IMN group, 672 control group) were included. Six of the included studies reported on a mixed population of patients undergoing all gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Of the remaining, 4 investigated IMN in colorectal cancer surgery, 2 in pancreatic surgery, and another 2 in patients undergoing surgery for gastric cancer. There was 1 study each on liver and esophageal cancer. The formulation of nutrition used in all studies in the treated patients was Impact (Novartis/Nestlé), which contains ω-3 fatty acids, arginine, and nucleotides. Preoperative IMN in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer reduced infectious complications [odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38-0.71, P < 0.0001, I = 16%, n = 1387] and length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.57 days, 95% CI -2.48 to -0.66, P = 0.0007, I = 34%, n = 995) when compared with control (isocaloric isonitrogeneous feed or normal diet). It, however, did not affect noninfectious complications (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73-1.33, P = 0.91, I = 0%, n = 1303) or mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.18-1.68, P = 0.29, I = 0%, n = 955).

CONCLUSION

Given the significant impact on infectious complications and a tendency to shorten length of stay, preoperative IMN should be encouraged in routine practice in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer.

Effect of Perioperative Nutritional Supplementation on Postoperative Complications-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Perioperative carbohydrate loading, increased protein intake, and immunonutrition may decrease postoperative complications. Studies on the topic have led to controversial results.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to August 2018 for randomized trials comparing the effect of perioperative nutritional supplements (intervention) versus control on postoperative complications in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Secondary outcomes included infectious complications and length of hospital stay (LOS). Random effects model was used to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR) of treatment effects. Pooled mean difference (MD) was used to compare LOS. Heterogeneity was assessed using I². Sources of heterogeneity were explored through subgroup analysis by nutritional supplementation protocol, type of surgery, and type of nutritional supplement. Risk of bias and quality of the evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 3951 articles, we identified 56 trials (n = 6370). Perioperative nutrition was associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications (RR 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-0.80); postoperative infections (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.79, n = 4582); and postoperative non-infectious complications (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.87, n = 4883). There were no significant heterogeneity outcomes analyzed (I² = 14%, 1%, and 7%, respectively). LOS was shorter for the intervention group, MD - 1.58 days; 95% CI - 1.83 to - 1.32; I² = 89%). Subgroup analysis did not identify sources of heterogeneity. The quality of evidence for postoperative complications was high and for LOS was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative nutritional optimization decreases the risk of postoperative infectious and non-infectious complications. It also decreases LOS in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery, but these findings should be taken with caution given the high heterogeneity.

American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Nutrition Screening and Therapy Within a Surgical Enhanced Recovery Pathway

Perioperative malnutrition has proven to be challenging to define, diagnose, and treat. Despite these challenges, it is well known that suboptimal nutritional status is a strong independent predictor of poor postoperative outcomes. Although perioperative caregivers consistently express recognition of the importance of nutrition screening and optimization in the perioperative period, implementation of evidence-based perioperative nutrition guidelines and pathways in the United States has been quite limited and needs to be addressed in surgery-focused recommendations. The second Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts with the objective of providing consensus recommendations on this important topic with the goal of (1) developing guidelines for screening of nutritional status to identify patients at risk for adverse outcomes due to malnutrition; (2) address optimal methods of providing nutritional support and optimizing nutrition status preoperatively; and (3) identifying when and how to optimize nutrition delivery in the postoperative period. Discussion led to strong recommendations for implementation of routine preoperative nutrition screening to identify patients in need of preoperative nutrition optimization. Postoperatively, nutrition delivery should be restarted immediately after surgery. The key role of oral nutrition supplements, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition (implemented in that order) in most perioperative patients was advocated for with protein delivery being more important than total calorie delivery. Finally, the role of often-inadequate nutrition intake in the posthospital setting was discussed, and the role of postdischarge oral nutrition supplements was emphasized.

[Preoperative bowel conditioning]

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal surgery is still associated with a relevant morbidity with the intestinal microbiome being of high importance in the pathogenesis of infectious complications. Various approaches, such as mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) with or without administration of oral antibiotics, fasting or dietary supplements aim at modulating the intestinal flora.

OBJECTIVE

This review summarizes the current literature pertinent to the influence of preoperative bowel conditioning on postoperative morbidity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed using the mentioned keywords with a focus on recent meta-analyses.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Bowel conditioning reduces postoperative infectious complications. Promising approaches are MBP plus administration of oral antibiotics, dietary supplements aiming at stabilization of the intestinal flora as well as the screening for and equilibration of malnutrition. The use of MBP as monotherapy without antibiotics should no longer be considered part of the clinical routine.

Preoperative immunonutrition in patients undergoing liver resection: A prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Preoperative supplementation with immunonutrients, including arginine and n-3 fatty acids, has been shown in a number of systematic reviews to reduce infectious complications in patients who have undergone gastrointestinal surgery. Limited information, however, is available on the benefits of nutritional supplementation enriched with arginine and n-3 fatty acids in patients undergoing liver resection.

AIM

To evaluate the effects of preoperative nutritional supplementation enriched with arginine and n-3 fatty acids on inflammatory and immunologic markers and clinical outcome in patients undergoing liver resection.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients undergoing liver resection were randomized to either five days of preoperative Impact^® [1020 kcal/d, immunonutrition (IMN) group], or standard care [no supplementation, standard care (STD) group]. Nutritional status was measured at study entry by subjective global assessment (SGA). Functional assessments (grip strength, fatigue and performance status) were carried out at study entry, on the day prior to surgery, and on postoperative day (POD) 7 and 30. Inflammatory and immune markers were measured at study entry, on the day prior to surgery, and POD 1, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 30. Postoperative complications were recorded prospectively until POD30.

RESULTS

A total of 32 patients (17 IMN and 15 STD) were analysed. All except four patients were SGA class A. The plasma ratio of (eicosapentaenoic acid plus docosahexaenoic acid) to arachidonic acid was higher in IMN patients on the day prior to surgery and POD 1, 3, 5 and 7 (P < 0.05). Plasma interleukin (IL)-6 concentrations were elevated in the IMN group (P = 0.017 for POD7). No treatment effect was detected for functional measures, immune response (white cell count and total lymphocytes) or markers of inflammation (C-reactive protein, tumour necrosis factor-α, IL-8, IL-10). There were 10 patients with infectious complications in the IMN group and 4 in the STD group (P = 0.087). Median hospital stay was 9 (range 4–49) d in the IMN group and 8 (3-34) d in the STD group (P = 0.476).

CONCLUSION

In well-nourished patients undergoing elective liver resection, this study failed to show any benefit of preoperative immunonutrition.

Multimodal Prehabilitation Programs as a Bundle of Care in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation reflects a proactive process of preoperative optimization undertaken between cancer diagnosis and definitive surgical treatment, with the intent of improving physiological capacity to withstand the major insult of surgery. Prehabilitation before GI cancer surgery is currently not widely adopted, and most research has focused on unimodal interventions such as exercise therapy, nutritional supplementation, and hematinic optimization. A review of the existing literature was undertaken to investigate the impact of multimodal prehabilitation programs as a "bundle of care."

DATA SOURCE

A systematic literature search was performed utilizing Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cinahl, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases.

STUDY SELECTION

The quality of studies was assessed by using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias (randomized trials) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scale (cohort studies).

INTERVENTION

Studies were chosen that involved pre-operative optimization of patients before GI cancer surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary outcome measured was the impact of prehabilitation programs on preoperative fitness and postoperative outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 544 studies identified, 20 were included in the qualitative analysis. Two trials investigated the impact of multimodal prehabilitation (exercise, nutritional supplementation, anxiety management). Trials exploring prehabilitation with unimodal interventions included impact of exercise therapy (7 trials), impact of preoperative iron replacement (5 trials), nutritional optimization (5 trials), and impact of preoperative smoking cessation (2 trials). Compliance within the identified studies was variable (range: 16%-100%).

LIMITATIONS

There is a lack of adequately powered trials that utilize objective risk stratification and uniform end points. As such, a meta-analysis was not performed because of the heterogeneity in study design.

CONCLUSION

Although small studies are supportive of multimodal interventions, there are insufficient data to make a conclusion about the integration of prehabilitation in GI cancer surgery as a bundle of care. Larger, prospective trials, utilizing uniform objective risk stratification and structured interventions, with predefined clinical and health economic end points, are required before definitive value can be assigned to prehabilitation programs.

Effect of immunonutrition on colorectal cancer patients undergoing surgery: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Immunonutrition has been used to prevent the complications after colorectal elective surgery. This systematic review aimed to analyze and assess the effect of immunonutrition on colorectal cancer patients who received elective surgery.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane) were used to search the latent studies which investigated the effects of enteral immunonutrition (EIN) compared with standard enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral immunonutrition (PIN) compared with standard parenteral nutrition (PN) on colorectal cancer patients who are undergoing surgery until 21st of April, 2017. Meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odd risk (OR), mean difference (MD), or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and heterogeneity was tested by Q test.

RESULTS

Nine publications were included. The meta-analysis results presented that EIN improved the length of hospital stay (pooled MD, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.29-3.41), infectious complications (pooled OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.21-0.53) which contains the Surgical Site Infections (pooled OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.22-0.58) and Superficial/Deep incisional infections (pooled OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64); meanwhile, PIN improved the length of hospital stay (pooled MD, 2.66; 95% CI, 0.62-4.76), IL-6 (pooled MD, - 6.09; 95% CI, - 10.11 to - 2.07), CD3 (pooled MD, 7.50; 95% CI, 3.57-11.43), CD4 (pooled MD, 5.47; 95% CI, 2.54-8.40), and CD4/CD8 (pooled MD, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.22-0.78); the level of CD8 was lower (pooled MD, - 4.32; 95% CI, - 7.09 to - 1.55) in PIN.

CONCLUSION

Immunonutrition could be an effective approach to enhance the immune function of colorectal cancer patients undergoing elective surgery and to improve the clinical and laboratory outcomes.

Meta-analysis of immunonutrition in major abdominal surgery

Background

The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential benefits of immunonutrition in major abdominal surgery with special regard to subgroups and influence of bias.

Methods

A systematic literature search from January 1985 to July 2015 was performed in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. Only RCTs investigating immunonutrition in major abdominal surgery were included. Outcomes evaluated were mortality, overall complications, infectious complications and length of hospital stay. The influence of different domains of bias was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. Evidence was rated according to the GRADE Working Group grading of evidence.

Results

A total of 83 RCTs with 7116 patients were included. Mortality was not altered by immunonutrition. Taking all trials into account, immunonutrition reduced overall complications (odds ratio (OR) 0·79, 95 per cent c.i. 0·66 to 0·94; P = 0·01), infectious complications (OR 0·58, 0·51 to 0·66; P &lt; 0·001) and shortened hospital stay (mean difference –1·79 (95 per cent c.i. –2·39 to –1·19) days; P &lt; 0·001) compared with control groups. However, these effects vanished after excluding trials at high and unclear risk of bias. Publication bias seemed to be present for infectious complications (P = 0·002). Non-industry-funded trials reported no positive effects for overall complications (OR 1·13, 0·88 to 1·46; P = 0·34), whereas those funded by industry reported large effects (OR 0·66, 0·48 to 0·91; P = 0·01).

Conclusion

Immunonutrition after major abdominal surgery did not seem to alter mortality (GRADE: high quality of evidence). Immunonutrition reduced overall complications, infectious complications and shortened hospital stay (GRADE: low to moderate). The existence of bias lowers confidence in the evidence (GRADE approach).

Preoperative Immunonutrition and Elective Colorectal Resection Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials demonstrate the efficacy of arginine-enriched nutritional supplements (immunonutrition) in reducing complications after surgery. The effectiveness of preoperative immunonutrition has not been evaluated in a community setting.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to determine whether immunonutrition before elective colorectal surgery improves outcomes in the community at large.

DESIGN

This is a prospective cohort study with a propensity score-matched comparative effectiveness evaluation.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in Washington State hospitals in the Surgical Care Outcomes Assessment Program from 2012 to 2015.

PATIENTS

Adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery were selected.

INTERVENTIONS

Surgeons used a preoperative checklist that recommended that patients take oral immunonutrition (237 mL, 3 times daily) for 5 days before elective colorectal resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Serious adverse events (infection, anastomotic leak, reoperation, and death) and prolonged length of stay were the primary outcomes measured.

RESULTS

Three thousand three hundred seventy-five patients (mean age 59.9 ± 15.2 years, 56% female) underwent elective colorectal surgery. Patients receiving immunonutrition more commonly were in a higher ASA class (III-V, 44% vs 38%; p = 0.01) or required an ostomy (18% vs 14%; p = 0.02). The rate of serious adverse events was 6.8% vs 8.3% (p = 0.25) and the rate of prolonged length of stay was 13.8% vs 17.3% (p = 0.04) in those who did and did not receive immunonutrition. After propensity score matching, covariates were similar among 960 patients. Although differences in serious adverse events were nonsignificant (relative risk, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.49-1.16), prolonged length of stay (relative risk, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.58-1.01 p = 0.05) was lower in those receiving immunonutrition.

LIMITATIONS

Patient compliance with the intervention was not measured. Residual confounding, including surgeon-level heterogeneity, may influence estimates of the effect of immunonutrition.

CONCLUSIONS

Reductions in prolonged length of stay, likely related to fewer complications, support the use of immunonutrition in quality improvement initiatives related to elective colorectal surgery. This population-based study supports previous trials of immunonutrition, but shows a lower magnitude of benefit, perhaps related to compliance or a lower rate of adverse events, highlighting the value of community-based assessments of comparative effectiveness.

Preoperative oral immunonutrition versus standard preoperative oral diet in well nourished patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy is still associated to high morbility, especially due to pancreatic surgery related and infectious complications: many risk factors have already been advocated. Aim of this study is to evaluate the role of preoperative oral immunonutrition in well nourished patients scheduled for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

METHODS

From February 2014 to June 2015, 54 well nourished patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy were enrolled for 5 days preoperative oral immunonutrition. A series of consecutive patients submitted to the same intervention in the same department, with preoperative standard oral diet, was matched 1:1. For analysis demographic, pathological and surgical variables were considered. Mortality rate, overall postoperative morbility, pancreatic fistula, post pancreatectomy haemorrhage, delayed gastric emptying, infectious complications and length of hospital stay were described for each groups. Chi squared test, Fisher's Exact test and Student's T test were used for comparison. Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. Statistics was performed using a freeware Microsoft Excel (®) based program and SPSS v 10.00.

RESULTS

No statistical differences in term of mortality (2.1% in each groups) and overall morbility rate (41.6% vs 47.9%) occurred between the groups as well as for pancreatic surgery related complications. Conversely, statistical differences were found for infectious complications (22.9% vs 43.7%, p = 0.034) and length of hospital stay (18.3 ± 6.8 days vs 21.7 ± 8.3, p = 0.035) in immunonutrition group.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative oral immunonutrition is effective for well nourished patients scheduled for pancreaticoduodenectomy; it helps to reduce the risk of postoperative infectious complications and length of hospital stays.

Should perioperative immunonutrition for elective surgery be the current standard of care?

Postoperative infectious complications are independently associated with increased hospital length of stay (LOS) and cost and contribute to significant inpatient morbidity. Many strategies such as avoidance of long periods of preoperative fasting, re-establishment of oral feeding as early as possible after surgery, metabolic control and early mobilization have been used to either prevent or reduce the incidence of postoperative infections. Despite these efforts, it remains a big challenge to our current healthcare system to mitigate the cost of postoperative morbidity. Furthermore, preoperative nutritional status has also been implicated as an independent risk factor for postoperative morbidity. Perioperative nutritional support using enteral and parenteral routes has been shown to decrease postoperative morbidity, especially in high-risk patients. Recently, the role of immunonutrition (IMN) in postoperative infectious complications has been studied extensively. These substrates have been found to positively modulate postsurgical immunosuppression and inflammatory responses. They have also been shown to be cost-effective by decreasing both tpostoperative infectious complications and hospital LOS. In this review, we discuss the postoperative positive outcomes associated with the use of perioperative IMN, their cost-effectiveness, current guidelines and future clinical implications.

Immunonutrition Support for Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastrointestinal Malignancy: Preoperative, Postoperative, or Perioperative? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Enteral immunonutrition (EIN) has been established to be as a significantly important modality to prevent the postoperative infectious and noninfectious complications, enhance the immunity of host, and eventually improve the prognosis of gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients undergoing surgery. However, different support routes, which are the optimum option, remain unclear. To evaluate the effects of different EIN support regimes for patients who underwent selective surgery for resectable GI malignancy, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was electronically searched until the end of December 2014. Moreover, we manually checked reference lists of eligible trials and review and retrieval unpublished literature. RCTs which investigated the comparative effects of EIN versus standard enteral nutrition (EN) or different EIN regimes were included if the clinical outcomes information can be extracted from it. A total of 27 RCTs were incorporated into this study. Pair-wise meta-analyses suggested that preoperative (relative risk [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.78), postoperative (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and perioperative EIN methods (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34-0.62) reduced incidence of postoperative infectious complications compared with standard EN. Moreover, perioperative EIN (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.44-0.95) reduced the incidence of postoperative noninfectious complications, and the postoperative (mean difference [MD], -2.38; 95% CI, -3.4 to -1.31) and perioperative EIN (MD, -2.64; 95% CI, -3.28 to -1.99) also shortened the length of postoperative hospitalization compared with standard EN. NMA found that EIN support effectively improved the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent selective surgery for GI cancer compared with standard EN. Our results suggest EIN support is promising alternative for operation management in comparison with standard EN, and perioperative EIN regime is the optimum option for managing clinical status of patients who underwent selective surgery for GI cancer.

Preoperative nutritional support in cancer patients with no clinical signs of malnutrition--prospective randomized controlled trial

Purpose

Preoperative nutrition is beneficial for malnourished cancer patients. Yet, there is little evidence whether or not it should be given to nonmalnourished patients. The aim of this study was to assess the need to introduce preoperative nutritional support in patients without malnutrition at qualification for surgery.

Methods

This was a prospective, two-arm, randomized, controlled, open-label study. Patients in interventional group received nutritional supplementation for 14 days before surgery, while control group kept on to their everyday diet. Each patient’s nutritional status was assessed twice—at qualification (weight loss in 6 months, laboratory parameters: albumin, total protein, transferrin, and total lymphocyte count) and 1 day before surgery (change in body weight and laboratory parameters). After surgery, all patients were followed up for 30 days for postoperative complications.

Results

Fifty-four patients in interventional and 48 in control group were analyzed. In postoperative period, patients in control group suffered from significantly higher (p < 0.001) number of serious complications compared with patients receiving nutritional supplementation. Moreover, levels of all laboratory parameters declined significantly (p < 0.001) in these patients, while in interventional arm were stable (albumin and total protein) or raised (transferrin and total lymphocyte count).

Conclusions

Preoperative nutritional support should be introduced for nonmalnourished patients as it helps to maintain proper nutritional status and reduce number and severity of postoperative complications compared with patients without such support.

[Perioperative nutritional therapy]

BACKGROUND

There is no difference in medical and nutritional therapy between elderly and young surgical patients. However, based on the high prevalence of malnutrition or a risk for malnutrition and the associated risk for complications, elderly surgical patients should receive special attention.

AIM

This article addresses the options in perioperative nutritional therapy and gives an overview on current guidelines and study results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The article includes a literature review of current national and international guidelines in the field of surgery and geriatrics. Cochrane reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and significant single studies are also included.

RESULTS

Contrary to former approaches, national and international organizations recommend to keep the duration of pre- and postoperative fasting as short as possible. The benefits of nutritional therapy in stabilization and improvement of the nutritional status of surgical patients has already been shown in several patient groups like patients undergoing major abdominal surgeries. For other patients groups, like patients with sepsis, further studies are needed to evaluate the benefit of a perioperative nutritional intervention.

Nutrition optimization prior to surgery

Optimization of metabolic state prior to major surgery leads to improved surgical outcomes. Nutrition screening protocols should be implemented in the preoperative evaluation, possibly as part of a bundle. Strategies to minimize hyperglycemia and insulin resistance by aggressive preoperative nutrition and carbohydrate loading may promote maintenance of a perioperative anabolic state, improving healing, reducing complications, and shortening the time to recovery of bowel function and hospital discharge. Short courses of preoperative immune-modulating formulas, using combinations of arginine, ω-3 fatty acids, and other nutrients, have been associated with improved surgical outcomes. These immune-modulating nutrients are key elements of metabolic pathways that promote attenuation of the metabolic response to stress and improve both wound healing and immune function. Patients with severe malnutrition and gastrointestinal dysfunction may benefit from preoperative parenteral nutrition. Continuation of feeding through the intraoperative period for severely stressed hypermetabolic patients undergoing nongastrointestinal surgery is another strategy to optimize metabolic state and reduce prolonged nutrition deficits. In this paper, we review the importance of preoperative nutrition and strategies for effective preoperative nutrition optimization.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of immune-modulating nutritional support for gastrointestinal cancer patients

BACKGROUND & AIM

Immune-modulating nutritional formula containing arginine, omega-3 fatty acids and nucleotides has been demonstrated to decrease complications and length of stay in surgical patients. This study aims at assessing the impact of immune-modulating formula on hospital costs in gastrointestinal cancer surgical patients in Switzerland.

METHOD

Based on a previously published meta-analysis, the relative risks of overall and infectious complications with immune-modulating versus standard nutrition formula were computed. Swiss hospital costs of patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery were retrieved. A method was developed to compute the patients' severity level, not taking into account the complications from the surgery. Incremental costs of complications were computed for both treatment groups, and sensitivity analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

Relative risk of complications with pre-, peri- and post-operative use of immune-modulating formula was 0.69 (95%CI 0.58-0.83), 0.62 (95%CI 0.53-0.73) and 0.73 (95%CI 0.35-0.96) respectively. The estimated average contribution of complications to the cost of stay was CHF 14,949 (€10,901) per patient (95%CI 10,712-19,186), independently of case's severity. Based on this cost, immune-modulating nutritional support decreased costs of hospital stay by CHF 1638 to CHF 2488 per patient (€1195-€1814). Net hospital savings were present for baseline complications rates as low as 5%.

CONCLUSION

Immune-modulating nutritional solution is a cost-saving intervention in gastrointestinal cancer patients. The additional cost of immune-modulating formula are more than offset by savings associated with decreased treatment of complications.