Malnutrition modifies the response to multimodal prehabilitation: A pooled analysis of prehabilitation trials

Association between protein intake and functional capacity in critically ill patients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) protein benchmarks are based on mortality and morbidity; whether these targets also support functional recovery is unknown. We assessed whether different protein doses influenced patients' functional capacity, measured by the Chelsea Physical Assessment score (CPAx).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective cohort study on ICU survivors with length of stay ≥7 days admitted between October 2014 and September 2020. Eligible patients were divided according to protein intake (g/kg/day): low (<0.8), medium (0.8-1.19), high (1.2-1.5), and very high (>1.5). Protein dose effect on CPAx was assessed at ICU discharge with analysis of covariance adjusting for age, illness severity, hospital length of stay before ICU admission, time to start nutrition support, and mechanical ventilation duration. We also investigated effect modification by energy intake and nutrition status.

RESULTS

Enrolled patients (n = 531) were similar for age, nutrition status, and illness severity across groups. CPAxs were nonlinearly associated with protein doses and similar among low, medium, and very high groups. The CPAx for the high group was statistically different (P = 0.014), indicating that the data of three groups could be pooled. Mean CPAx difference remained statistically significant after adjusting for confounding variables (3.9 ± 1.8, P = 0.029 in the four-group model, and 2.7 ± 0.9, P = 0.003 in the pooled two-group model). Energy intake was equivalent between groups and did not modify CPAx. The high group had superior CPAx in both well-nourished and malnourished patients, indicating nutrition status was not an effect modifier.

CONCLUSION

Protein dose 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day was associated with superior functional capacity at ICU discharge compared with other doses. Neither energy intake nor nutrition status modified functional capacity across groups; therefore, the results appear to be influenced by 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day.

Contemporary Perioperative Nutritional Care

Over the last decades, surgical complication rates have fallen drastically. With the introduction of new surgical techniques coupled with specific evidence-based perioperative care protocols, patients today run half the risk of complications compared with traditional care. Many patients who in previous years needed weeks of hospital care now recover and can leave in days. These remarkable improvements are achieved by using nutritional stress-reducing care elements for the surgical patient that reduce metabolic stress and allow for the return of gut function. This new approach to nutritional care and how it is delivered as an integral part of enhancing recovery after surgery are outlined in this review. We also summarize the new and increased understanding of the effects of the routes of delivering nutrition and the role of the gut, as well as the current recommendations for artificial nutritional support.

Outcomes reported in randomised trials of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity of reported outcomes can impact the certainty of evidence for prehabilitation. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map outcomes and assessment tools used in trials of surgical prehabilitation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched in February 2023. Randomised controlled trials of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery were included. Reported outcomes were classified according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research framework.

RESULTS

We included 76 trials, mostly focused on abdominal or orthopaedic surgeries. A total of 50 different outcomes were identified, measured using 184 outcome assessment tools. Observer-reported outcomes were collected in 86% of trials (n=65), with hospital length of stay being most common. Performance outcomes were reported in 80% of trials (n=61), most commonly as exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Clinician-reported outcomes were included in 78% (n=59) of trials and most frequently included postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo classification. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 76% (n=58) of trials, with health-related quality of life using the 36- or 12-Item Short Form Survey being most prevalent. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 16% of trials (n=12) most commonly using inflammatory markers assessed with C-reactive protein.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of outcomes and assessment tools across surgical prehabilitation trials. Identification of meaningful outcomes, and agreement on appropriate assessment tools, could inform the development of a prehabilitation core outcomes set to harmonise outcome reporting and facilitate meta-analyses.

Effectiveness of prehabilitation during neoadjuvant therapy for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer: a systematic review

Progression of the physical weakness during neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer is a serious problem; however, prehabilitation during NAT has the potential to overcome the unmet need. Nevertheless, systematic reviews on this topic have not been summarized. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to determine prehabilitation's effectiveness, acceptability, and safety during NAT for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PEDro databases. A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness of prehabilitation during NAT, along with a descriptive analysis of acceptance and safety. This study analyzed data from three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine non-RCTs involving 664 patients. The meta-analysis of two RCTs demonstrated that prehabilitation during NAT may be more effective than usual care in enhancing tolerance to NAT and grip strength; moreover, one RCT and three non-RCTs revealed that prehabilitation may reduce the risk of postoperative complications. The adherence rates for exercise programs in two RCTs and seven non-RCTs were 55-76%. Additionally, two studies reported a 76% adherence rate for multimodal prehabilitation programs, including exercise, dietary, and psychological care. Six studies reported no serious prehabilitation-related adverse events during NAT. Prehabilitation during NAT may be a safe and beneficial intervention strategy for patients with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. However, the investigation of strategies to enhance adherence is essential. Furthermore, additional high-quality RCTs are needed to examine the effect of prehabilitation during NAT.

Malnutrition in cancer patients: Causes, consequences and treatment options

Cancer patients are at a high risk of malnutrition and disease-associated catabolic derangements. It is important to differentiate between 'simple' - voluntary or involuntary - caloric restriction with protein-sparing ketogenic metabolic adaptation and cachexia, characterized by the combination of weight loss and dysmetabolism, most prominently systemic inflammation. While both conditions result in the sacrifice of fat and protein stores and thus impact on treatment tolerance, complication rates and survival, the presence of metabolic derangements is especially dangerous by straining multiple organ functions. To avoid underdiagnosing and undertreating malnutrition, all cancer patients should be routinely screened for nutritional risk. At-risk patients require comprehensive assessment for contributing and treatable causes and, if available, multi-professional efforts to improve food intake, support anabolism, alleviate distress and antagonize pro-inflammatory processes. In curative settings, anabolic support should accompany or even precede anticancer treatments. Prehabilitation before major surgery, has been studied extensively, including muscle training as well as nutritional and/or psychological support. Recent meta-analyses report a consistent benefit on functional capacity and possible improvement in postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. In palliative settings, prevailing catabolic derangements require careful assessment of the individual constellation of disturbed functions and an empathic evaluation of benefits and risks of nutritional interventions. This is of special relevance in patients with an expected survival of less than a few months. Due to the complex interactions of mechanical, metabolic and psychological factors, multi-professional teams should be involved.

Prehabilitation: Who can benefit?

Prehabilitation is an intervention that occurs between cancer diagnosis and the start of an acute treatment. It involves physical, nutritional, and psychological assessments to establish a baseline functional level and provide targeted interventions to improve a person's health and prevent future impairments. Prehabilitation has been applied to surgical oncology and has shown positive results at improving functional capacity, reducing hospital stay, decreasing complications, and enhancing health-related quality of life. The importance of collaboration between various healthcare professionals and the implementation of multimodal interventions, including exercise training, nutrition optimization, and emotional support is discussed in this manuscript. The need for screening and assessment of conditions such as sarcopenia, frailty, or low functional status in order to identify patients who would benefit the most from prehabilitation is vital and should be a part of all prehabilitation programs. Exercise and nutrition play complementary roles in prehabilitation, enhancing anabolism and performance. However, in the presence of malnutrition and sarcopenia, exercise-related energy expenditure without sufficient protein intake can lead to muscle wasting and further deterioration of functional capacity, thus special emphasis on nutrition and protein intake should be made in these cases. Finally, the challenges and the need for a paradigm shift in perioperative care are discussed to effectively implement personalized prehabilitation programs.

Nutritional aspects of prehabilitation in adults with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplant

Malnutrition, sarcopenia (low muscle mass), and physical frailty have gained increasing recognition in candidates for liver transplant (LT) as these conditions can impact postoperative functional capacity. Multidimensional prehabilitation programs have been proposed as a safe intervention in adults awaiting LT but the nutritional pillar of prehabilitation has been understudied. This review summarizes the nutritional recommendations for prehabilitation for individuals with cirrhosis awaiting LT. Three major aspects of nutritional prehabilitation are discussed: (1) Assess: Evaluate nutritional status and assess for malnutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty to guide the nutritional prehabilitation intervention intensity, increasing across universal, targeted, and specialist levels; (2) Intervene: Prescribe a nutritional prehabilitation intervention to meet established nutrition guidelines in cirrhosis with a targeted focus on improving nutritional status and muscle health; (3) Reassess: Follow-up based on the required intensity of nutritional care with as needed intervention adjustment. Topics covered in the review include nutritional care levels for prehabilitation, energy prescriptions across body mass index strata, detailed considerations around protein intake (amount, distribution, and quality), carbohydrate and fat intake, other nutritional considerations, and the potential role of dietary supplements and nutraceuticals. Future research is warranted to more accurately evaluate energy needs, evaluate emerging dietary supplementation strategies, and establish the role of nutraceuticals alongside food-based interventions. While the general principles of nutritional prehabilitation are ready for immediate application, future large-scale randomized controlled trials in this space will help to quantify the benefit that can be gained by transitioning the LT approach from passive "transplant waitlist time" to active "transplant preparation time."

Nutritional interventions in prehabilitation for cancer surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Nutrition remains a key focus in the preoptimization of patients undergoing cancer surgery. Given the catabolic nature of cancer, coupled with the physiological insult of surgery, malnutrition (when assessed) is prevalent in a significant proportion of patients. Therefore, robust research on interventions to attenuate the detrimental impact of this is crucial.

RECENT FINDINGS

As a unimodal prehabilitation intervention, assessment for malnutrition is the first step, as universal supplementation has not been shown to have a significant impact on outcomes. However, targeted nutritional therapy, whether that is enteral or parenteral, has been shown to improve the nutritional state of patients' presurgery, potentially reducing the rate of postoperative complications such as nosocomial infections. As part of multimodal prehabilitation, the situation is more nuanced given the difficulty in attribution of effects to the differing components, and vast heterogeneity in intervention and patient profiles.

SUMMARY

Multimodal prehabilitation is proven to improve length of hospital stay and postoperative outcomes, with nutrition forming a significant part of the therapy given. Further work is required to look at not only the interplay between the optimization of nutritional status and other prehabilitation interventions, but also how to best select which patients will achieve significant benefit.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in prehabilitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Inadequate study reporting precludes interpretation of findings, pooling of results in meta-analyses, and delays knowledge translation. While prehabilitation interventions aim to enhance candidacy for surgery, to our knowledge, a review of the quality of reporting in prehabilitation has yet to be conducted. Our objective was to determine the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prehabilitation are reported according to methodological and intervention reporting checklists.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: RCTs of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

search was conducted in March 2022 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane.

CHARTING METHODS

identified studies were compared to CONSORT, CERT & Modified CERT, TIDieR, PRESENT, and CONSORT-SPI. An agreement ratio (AR) was defined to evaluate if applicable guideline items were correctly reported. Data were analyzed as frequency (n, %) and mean with standard deviation (SD).

RESULTS

We identified 935 unique articles and included 70 trials published from 1994 to 2022. Most prehabilitation programs comprised exercise-only interventions (n = 40, 57%) and were applied before oncologic surgery (n = 32, 46%). The overall mean AR was 57% (SD: 20.9%). The specific mean ARs were as follows: CONSORT: 71% (SD: 16.3%); TIDieR: 62% (SD:17.7%); CERT: 54% (SD: 16.6%); Modified-CERT: 40% (SD:17.8%); PRESENT: 78% (SD: 8.9); and CONSORT-SPI: 47% (SD: 22.1).

CONCLUSION

Altogether, existing prehabilitation trials report approximately half of the checklist items recommended by methodological and intervention reporting guidelines. Reporting practices may improve with the development of a reporting checklist specific to prehabilitation interventions.

Surgical Prehabilitation in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancers: Impact of Unimodal and Multimodal Programs on Postoperative Outcomes and Prospects for New Therapeutic Strategies-A Systematic Review

The advantages of prehabilitation in surgical oncology are unclear. This systematic review aims to (1) evaluate the latest evidence of preoperative prehabilitation interventions on postoperative outcomes after gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery and (2) discuss new potential therapeutic targets as part of prehabilitation. Randomized controlled trials published between January 2017 and August 2022 were identified through Medline. The population of interest was oncological patients undergoing GI surgery. Trials were considered if they evaluated prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, physical activity, probiotics and symbiotics, fecal microbiota transplantation, and ghrelin receptor agonists), alone or combined, on postoperative outcomes. Out of 1180 records initially identified, 15 studies were retained. Evidence for the benefits of unimodal interventions was limited. Preoperative multimodal programs, including nutrition and physical activity with or without psychological support, showed improvement in postoperative physical performance, muscle strength, and quality of life in patients with esophagogastric and colorectal cancers. However, there was no benefit for postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions, and mortality. No trial evaluated the impact of fecal microbiota transplantation or oral ghrelin receptor agonists. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings, identify patients who are more likely to benefit from surgical prehabilitation, and harmonize interventions.

Impact of Dietary Counseling on Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Cancer Awaiting Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery

We examined the effectiveness of dietary counseling performed within a trimodal prehabilitation study for patients with cancer awaiting hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery. Additionally, we explored relationships between nutritional status and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The dietary intervention aimed to achieve a protein intake of 1.5 g/kg/day and reduce nutrition-impact symptoms. Patients received dietary counseling 4 weeks prior to surgery (prehabilitation group); the rehabilitation group just before surgery. We used 3-day food journals to calculate protein intake and the abridged Patient-generated Subjective Global Assessment questionnaire (aPG-SGA) to determine nutritional status. We utilized the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire to measure HRQoL. Sixty-one patients participated in the study (30 = prehabilitation). Dietary counseling achieved a significant increase in preoperative protein intake (+0.3 ± 0.1 g/kg/day, P = 0.007), with no change in the rehabilitation group. Dietary counseling did not mitigate a significant increase in aPG-SGA postoperatively (prehabilitation: +5.8 ± 1.0; rehabilitation: +3.3 ± 1.0; P < 0.05). aPG-SGA was predictive of HRQoL (β = -1.77, P < 0.0001). HRQoL remained unchanged in both groups over the study period. Dietary counseling within a HPB prehabilitation program improves preoperative protein intake, but not aPG-SGA, which is predictive of HRQoL. Future studies should examine whether specialized medical management of nutrition-impact symptoms would improve HRQoL outcomes within a prehabilitation model.

Effect of short-term prehabilitation of older patients with colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of short-term, hospital-based, supervised multimodal prehabilitation on elderly patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted from October 2020 to December 2021, which included a total of 587 CRC patients who were scheduled to undergo radical resection. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. All patients were treated within a standardized enhanced recovery pathway, and patients in the prehabilitation group received an additional supervised, short-term multimodal preoperative prehabilitation intervention. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

Among the participants, 62 patients were excluded; 95 participants were included in the prehabilitation group and 430 in the non-prehabilitation group. After PSM analysis, 95 pairs of well-matched patients were included in the comparative study. Participants in the prehabilitation group had better preoperative functional capacity (402.78 m vs. 390.09 m, P<0.001), preoperative anxiety status (9% vs. 28%, P<0.001), time to first ambulation[25.0(8.0) hours vs. 28.0(12.4) hours, P=0.008], time to first flatus [39.0(22.0) hours vs. 47.7(34.0) hours, P=0.006], duration of the postoperative length of hospital stay [8.0(3.0) days vs. 10.0(5.0) days, P=0.007), and quality of life in terms of psychological dimensions at 1 month postoperatively [53.0(8.0) vs. 49.0(5.0), P<0.001].

Conclusion

The short-term, hospital-based, supervised multimodal prehabilitation is feasible with a high degree of compliance in older CRC patients, which improves their short-term clinical outcomes.

The Role of Exercise Before Cancer Treatment

OBJECTIVES

We aim to describe on the role of exercise in preparation for cancer treatments (prehabilitation) that include surgery and neoadjuvant or nonsurgical approaches. We discuss the evidence for the role of exercise and provide guidelines to exercise prescription and examples of the structure of prehabilitation exercise programs.

DATA SOURCE

We use peer-reviewed articles obtained through PubMed searches with search terms: exercise, oncology, cancer surgery, exercise physiology, respiratory exercises, prehabilitation, and behavior change.

CONCLUSION

The emergence of prehabilitation in preparing patients for cancer care has followed a rapidly upward trajectory over the past 20 years. Exercise prehabilitation remains the cornerstone of management, particularly in patients attending for major surgery. Multimodal approaches to supporting patients before cancer treatment are now well accepted and include screening and individualized treatments of functional, nutritional, and psychological impairments. Respiratory training before surgery and the addition of behavior change strategies to improve adherence to interventions and promote improved longer-term outcomes are now included in many prehabilitation programs. For exercise to be an effective treatment in improving fitness and strength, supervised aerobic and resistance exercises at moderate intensity are recommended. There remains debate regarding the use of higher-intensity exercise, the appropriate outcome to measure efficacy, and the mechanisms driving the efficacy of exercise.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

We provide background evidence and knowledge pertaining to the role and provision of exercise prehabilitation. Understanding screening, risk factors, and potential efficacy assists in knowing who to refer for prehabilitation and what the programs include. This enables more effective com munication with patients attending for cancer treatments.

Demystifying Malnutrition to Improve Nutrition Screening and Assessment in Oncology

OBJECTIVE

Patients with cancer and malnutrition are more likely to experience poor treatment tolerance, prolonged length of hospital stay, and decreased quality of life. Early and sustained nutrition risk screening is the first step to tackling this patient and health care burden. Yet, malnutrition remains largely overlooked and undertreated. Malnutrition mismanagement could be indicative of a systemic misunderstanding. With this narrative review, we aimed to (1) define malnutrition, (2) address common malnutrition misconceptions, and (3) summarize nutrition recommendations for patients with cancer.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and international clinical practice guidelines were used.

CONCLUSION

Malnutrition represents an unbalanced nutritional state that alters body composition and diminishes function. Malnutrition is not always physically obvious, and albumin is not a reliable marker of nutritional status; therefore, systematically screening all patients with a validated nutrition risk screening tool at time of cancer diagnosis, and periodically throughout treatment, is necessary to provide optimal, equitable care. Nutrition risk screening takes less than 1 minute to complete and can be completed by any health care professional. Patients that screen positive for nutrition risk should be referred to a registered nutritionist or dietitian for comprehensive nutritional assessment, diagnosis, and treatment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

All health care professionals can and should be responsible for preventing and treating malnutrition. Registered nurses can actively participate in improving patient outcomes by screening patients for nutrition risk, weighing patients at every visit, referring patients to dietitians for nutrition treatment, and providing supportive medical management of nutrition impact symptoms such as nausea.

Tailoring prehabilitation to address the multifactorial nature of functional capacity for surgery

Mounting evidence suggests that recovery begins before the surgical incision. The pre-surgery phase of recovery - the preparation for optimal surgical recovery - can be reinforced with prehabilitation. Prehabilitation is the approach of enhancing the functional capacity of the individual to enable them to withstand a stressful event. With this narrative review, we apply the Wilson & Cleary conceptual model of patient outcomes to specify the complex and integrative relationship of health factors that limit functional capacity before surgery. To have the greatest impact on patient outcomes, prehabilitation programs require individualized and coordinated care from medical, nutritional, psychosocial, and exercise services. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Ageing and cancer: a research gap to fill

The complex mechanisms of ageing biology are increasingly understood. Interventions to reduce or delay ageing‐associated diseases are emerging. Cancer is one of the diseases promoted by tissue ageing. A clockwise mutational signature is identified in many tumours. Ageing might be a modifiable cancer risk factor. To reduce the incidence of ageing‐related cancer and to detect the disease at earlier stages, we need to understand better the links between ageing and tumours. When a cancer is established, geriatric assessment and measures of biological age might help to generate evidence‐based therapeutic recommendations. In this approach, patients and caregivers would include the respective weight to give to the quality of life and survival in the therapeutic choices. The increasing burden of cancer in older patients requires new generations of researchers and geriatric oncologists to be trained, to properly address disease complexity in a multidisciplinary manner, and to reduce health inequities in this population of patients. In this review, we propose a series of research challenges to tackle in the next few years to better prevent, detect and treat cancer in older patients while preserving their quality of life.

Prehabilitation, enhanced recovery after surgery, or both? A narrative review

This narrative review presents a biological rationale and evidence to describe how the preoperative condition of the patient contributes to postoperative morbidity. Any preoperative condition that prevents a patient from tolerating the physiological stress of surgery (e.g. poor cardiopulmonary reserve, sarcopaenia), impairs the stress response (e.g. malnutrition, frailty), and/or augments the catabolic response to stress (e.g. insulin resistance) is a risk factor for poor surgical outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions that include exercise, nutrition, and psychosocial components can be applied before surgery to strengthen physiological reserve and enhance functional capacity, which, in turn, supports recovery through attaining surgical resilience. Prehabilitation complements Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care to achieve optimal patient outcomes because recovery is not a passive process and it begins preoperatively.