Grains or veins: is enteral nutrition really better than parenteral nutrition? A look at the evidence

Peptide-based formula: Clinical applications and benefits

The use of enteral nutrition (EN) continues to increase given benefits. However, with this increase in use, it is also becoming evident that enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is also quite prevalent, leading to the inability to meet nutrition needs in many patients. Given the wide variability in the EN population as well as the number of formulas available, there is not a clear consensus regarding the best approach to EFI management. One approach that is emerging to improve EN tolerance is the use of peptide-based formulas (PBFs). PBFs refer to enteral formulas containing proteins that have been enzymatically hydrolyzed to dipeptides and tripeptides. These hydrolyzed proteins are often combined with higher medium-chain triglyceride content to generate an enteral formula that is essentially easier to absorb and utilize. Emerging data demonstrate that the use of PBF in patients with EFI may improve clinical outcomes along with a corresponding reduction in healthcare utilization and potentially the cost of care. This review aims to navigate through key clinical applications and benefits of PBF and to discuss relevant data shared in the literature.

Effect of combined parenteral and enteral nutrition for patients with a critical illness: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Whether combined parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) is superior to EN alone remains controversial.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combined PN and EN versus EN alone for critically ill patients based on published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

Studies designed as RCTs evaluating the treatment effectiveness of combined PN and EN versus EN alone for critically ill patients were identified from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to April 2019.

METHODS

The pooled relative risks and weighted mean differences with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model. Twelve RCTs recruiting a total of 5609 adults and 1440 children were selected for the final meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The summary relative risks indicated that combined PN and EN was not associated with the risk of all-cause mortality, respiratory infection, urinary tract infection, and nutrition-related complications. Moreover, combined PN and EN was associated with longer hospital stay and higher albumin and prealbumin levels compared with EN alone. No significant differences were, however, found between combined PN and EN and EN alone in terms of ventilatory support, intensive care unit stay, and transferrin and C-reactive protein levels.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that combined PN and EN significantly increased hospital stay duration and albumin and prealbumin levels compared with EN alone for critically ill patients. Large-scale RCTs should be conducted to compare the treatment effectiveness of combined PN and EN versus EN alone for critically ill patients due to a specific cause.

The impact of perioperative care on complications and short term outcome in ARM type rectovestibular fistula: An ARM-Net consortium study

BACKGROUND

The impact of perioperative care interventions on postreconstructive complications and short-term colorectal outcome in patients with anorectal malformation (ARM) type rectovestibular fistula is unknown.

METHODS

An ARM-Net consortium multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed including 165 patients with a rectovestibular fistula. Patient characteristics, perioperative care interventions, timing of reconstruction, postreconstructive complications and the colorectal outcome at one year of follow-up were registered.

RESULTS

Overall complications were seen in 26.8% of the patients, of which 41% were regarded major. Differences in presence of enterostomy, timing of reconstruction, mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis and postoperative feeding regimen had no impact on the occurrence of overall complications. However, mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis ≥48 h and postoperative nil by mouth showed a significant reduction in major complications. The lowest rate of major complications was found in the group having these three interventions combined (5.9%). Multivariate analyses did not show independent significant results of any of the perioperative care interventions owing to center-specific combinations. At one year follow-up, half of the patients experienced constipation and this was significantly higher among those with preoperative mechanical bowel preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in perioperative care interventions do not seem to impact the incidence of overall complications in a large cohort of European rectovestibular fistula-patients. Mechanical bowel preparation, antibiotic prophylaxis ≥48 h, and postoperative nil by mouth showed the least major complications. Independency could not be established owing to center-specific combinations of interventions.

TYPE OF STUDY

Treatment study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Nutrition Management in Pediatric Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders

Gastrointestinal (GI) motility disorders are associated with suboptimal nutrition in children, mainly because of malabsorption and symptoms limiting dietary intake. Apart from medical therapy, nutrition support has a crucial role in maintaining growth and improving clinical outcomes in children. Based on recent data and guidelines, this review provides an overview of nutrition assessment and specific interventions for common pediatric GI disorders including gastroesophageal reflux disease, esophageal motility disorders, gastroparesis, chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction, and constipation. Several approaches including diet modification, enteral nutrition (gastric vs post-pyloric, temporary vs permanent access, bolus vs continuous), and parenteral nutrition need to be tailored based on patient's nutrition and clinical assessment.

Pre-operative percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube placement does not increase post-operative complications or mortality in oesophageal cancer

Background

The percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube in patients with oesophageal cancer is controversial, owing to a perceived risk of tumour seeding at the PEG site, theoretical difficulty in formation of gastric conduit during oesophagectomy and a fear of increased post-operative complications, including anastomotic leak. We aimed to assess the impact of PEG tubes on nutritional status and post-operative complications in patients with oesophageal cancer who underwent PEG tube insertion prior to neo-adjuvant treatment.

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of 800 patients with oesophageal or gastro oesophageal junction (GOJ) cancer, who underwent PEG insertion from June, 2010 to May, 2015. Out of these, 168 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria were analysed further. All of them were followed up for 3 years after treatment to assess overall survival. Thus, the follow up of the last patient included in the study was completed on May, 31, 2018.

Results

The average body mass index (BMI) of patients was maintained following PEG tube, during neo-adjuvant treatment (22.34±4.84 before PEG vs. 21.85±3.90 after PEG, P value: 0.1). Out of 168 patients, 33 (19.7%) developed a complication following PEG tube, with PEG site infection as the most common in 24 (14.2%). PEG-related mortality at 1 month was 0%. Ninety out of 168 patients (59%) underwent surgery after neo-adjuvant treatment. Three patients had tumour seeding at the PEG site and thus surgery could not be performed. Gastric conduit formation was possible in all 99 patients. Postoperative complications were seen in 17/99 (17%) patients, including surgical site infections in 7 (7.07%), anastomotic leak in 6 (6.06%) and anastomotic stricture in 4 (4.04%). Overall survival at 3 years was 87%.

Conclusions

Pre-operative PEG tube in oesophageal cancer is safe and does not compromise the future anastomosis. Also, it helps in maintaining the nutritional status during neo-adjuvant treatment.

Prognostic factors in esophageal cancer treated with curative intent

The overall prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer has improved in recent decades due to surgical and medical progress, but overall survival remains poor. Better patient selection and tailored treatment are needed. Different prognostic factors linked with the patient, tumoral characteristics and treatment with curative intent have been identified and are the purpose of this review. Tumor detection at an earlier stage, the advent of new molecules and therapeutic combinations, and the centralization of management in high-volume centers should help to improve the prognosis of esophageal cancer. Improved imaging techniques and a better prediction strategy should guide future treatments.

Effect of combined parenteral and enteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition alone for critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The increased mortality rate and other poor prognosis make malnutrition a serious issue for adult critically ill patients in intensive care unit care. This study was to compare outcomes between combined parenteral and enteral nutrition and enteral nutrition alone for adult critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed (June 30, 2018), EMBASE (June 30, 2018), and Cochrane library databases (June 30, 2018) were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of comparing combined PN and EN with EN alone were eligible. Relative risks (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 5360 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with combined PN and EN, fewer respiratory infections (RR, 1.13 [95% CI 1.01-1.25]) and shorter length of days at hospital (MD, 1.83 [95% CI 1.05-2.62]) were observed in EN alone group. And no significant differences were found on hospital mortality (RR, 0.91 [95% CI 0.74-1.12]), length of days in ICU (MD, -0.23 [95% CI -1.79 to 1.32]), duration of ventilatory support (MD, -1.10 [95% CI -3.15 to 0.94]), albumin (MD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21]), or prealbumin (MD, -0.77 [95% CI -0.22 to 1.75]) between theses 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Receiving EN alone decreased the respiratory infections and length of days at hospital for critically ill patients. Combined PN and EN did not add up the potential risk from PN and EN on hospital mortality, length of days in ICU, duration of ventilatory support, albumin, and prealbumin.

Impact of Early Enteral Nutrition on Nutritional and Immunological Outcomes of Gastric Cancer Patients Undergoing Gastrostomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The present systematic review and meta-analysis study evaluated the impact of early enteral nutrition (EN) on postoperative nutritional and immunological outcomes of gastric cancer (GC) patients.

METHOD

The databases of PubMed, Embase, Springer, and Cochrane library were searched till September 2016 to identify studies which evaluated the effects of EN compared with parenteral nutrition (PN) on postoperative immunological and nutritional status and hospitalization time in GC patients. Mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) was calculated and I-square statistic test was used for heterogeneity analysis.

RESULTS

The present systematic review and meta-analysis have consisted of seven trials, containing 835 GC patients. According to the result of meta-analysis, compared with PN, EN significantly resulted in more increase in the level of albumin [MD = 2.07 (0.49, 3.64)], prealbumin [MD = 9.41 (049, 33.55)], weight [MD = 1.52 (0.32, 2.72)], CD3+ [SMD = 1.96 (1.50, 2.43)], CD4+ [SMD = 2.45 (1.97, 2.93)], natural killers [MD = 5.80 (3.75, 7.85)], and also a decrease in the hospitalization time [MD=-2.39 (-2.74, -2.03)].

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated that early administration of EN is more effective in improving postsurgical nutrition status and immune index in GC patients. So, based on these results, postoperative early administration of EN is recommended for GC patients where possible.

WITHDRAWN: Nutrition support for bone marrow transplant patients

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002. Bone marrow transplantation involves administration of toxic chemotherapy and infusion of marrow cells. After treatment, patients can develop poor appetite, mucositis and gastrointestinal failure, leading to malnutrition. To prevent this, parenteral nutrition (PN) support is often first choice but is associated with increased risk of infection. Enteral nutrition (EN) is an alternative, as is addition of substrates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy of EN or PN support for patients receiving bone marrow transplant.

SEARCH METHODS

Search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL in November 2000 and subsequently June 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared one form of nutrition support with another, or control, for bone marrow transplant patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Twenty nine studies were identified. Data were collected on participants' characteristics; adverse effects; neutropaenia; % change in body weight; graft versus host disease; and survival.

MAIN RESULTS

In two studies (82 participants) glutamine mouthwash reduced number of days patients were neutropenic (6.82 days, 95%CI (1.67 to 11.98) P = 0.009) compared with placebo. Three studies reported (103 participants) that patients receiving PN with glutamine had reduced hospital stay, 6.62 d (95%CI 3.47 to 9.77, P = 0.00004) compared with patients receiving standard PN. However, in the update a further study was added (147 participants) which altered the pooled results: duration in hospital may be increased for those who receive PN with additional glutamine - 0.22 days (95%CI (1.29 to 1.72). Two other studies reported that (73 participants) patients receiving PN plus glutamine had reduced incidence of positive blood cultures (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.65, P = 0.006) compared to those receiving standard PN. However, a study from the update (113 participants in total) showed the odds of having a positive blood culture have increased but are still less likely if the patient receives PN with glutamine compared to standard PN (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.04). When patients were given PN versus IV hydration, (25 participants) patients receiving PN had a higher incidence of line infections (OR 21.23, 95%CI 4.15 to 108.73, P = 0.0002) compared to those receiving standard IV fluids. The update identified one study which recognised that (55 participants) those who received IV were likely to spend less time in hospital, 3.30 days (95%CI -0.38 to 6.98, P = 0.08), although this result was not significant. As reported in the original review there remains no evaluable data to properly compare PN with EN.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this update an additional study that compared PN and Glutamine versus standard PN showed that the certain benefits of parenteral nutrition with added glutamine compared to standard PN for reducing hospital stay are no longer definite. When PN with glutamine is compared with standard PN, patients may not leave hospital earlier, but do have reduced incidence of positive blood cultures, than those receiving standard PN. Where possible use of intravenous fluids and oral diet should be considered as a preference to parenteral nutrition, however, in the event of a patient suffering severe gastrointestinal failure even with a trial of enteral feeding, PN with the addition of glutamine could be considered.

Nutrition in Patients with Gastric Cancer: An Update

BACKGROUND

Nutritional management of patients with gastric cancer (GC) represents a challenge.

SUMMARY

This review provides an overview of the present evidence on nutritional support in patients with GC undergoing surgery as well as in those with advanced disease.

KEY MESSAGE

For patients undergoing surgery, the preoperative nutritional condition directly affects postoperative prognosis, overall survival and disease-specific survival. Perioperative nutritional support enriched with immune-stimulating nutrients reduces overall complications and hospital stay but not mortality after major elective gastrointestinal surgery. Early enteral nutrition after surgery improves early and long-term postoperative nutritional status and reduces the length of hospitalization as well. Vitamin B12 and iron deficiency are common metabolic sequelae after gastrectomy and warrant appropriate replacement. In malnourished patients with advanced GC, short-term home complementary parenteral nutrition improves the quality of life, nutritional status and functional status. Total home parenteral nutrition represents the only modality of caloric intake for patients with advanced GC who are unable to take oral or enteral nutrition.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Early evaluations of nutritional status and nutritional support represent key aspects in the management of GC patients with both operable and advanced disease.

Translocation of gut flora and its role in sepsis

Bacterial translocation is the invasion of indigenous intestinal bacteria through the gut mucosa to normally sterile tissues and the internal organs. Sometimes instead of bacteria, inflammatory compounds are responsible for clinical symptoms as in systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). The difference between sepsis and SIRS is that pathogenic bacteria are isolated from patients with sepsis but not with those of SIRS. Bacterial translocation occurs more frequently in patients with intestinal obstruction and in immunocompromised patients and is the cause of subsequent sepsis. Factors that can trigger bacterial translocation from the gut are host immune deficiencies and immunosuppression, disturbances in normal ecological balance of gut, mucosal barrier permeability, obstructive jaundice, stress, etc. Bacterial translocation occurs through the transcellular and the paracellular pathways and can be measured both directly by culture of mesenteric lymph nodes and indirectly by using labeled bacteria, peripheral blood culture, detection of microbial DNA or endotoxin and urinary excretion of non-metabolisable sugars. Bacterial translocation may be a normal phenomenon occurring on frequent basis in healthy individuals without any deleterious consequences. But when the immune system is challenged extensively, it breaks down and results in septic complications at different sites away from the main focus. The factors released from the gut and carried in the mesenteric lymphatics but not in the portal blood are enough to cause multi-organ failure. Thus, bacterial translocation may be a promoter of sepsis but not the initiator. This paper reviews literature on the translocation of gut flora and its role in causing sepsis.

Immunoenhancing enteral and parenteral nutrition for gastrointestinal surgery: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Frequentist meta-analyses have demonstrated that immunoenhancing parenteral nutrition (IMPN) and enteral nutrition (IMEN) reduce the incidence of infection and shorten the length of hospital stays compared with standard parenteral nutrition (SPN) and enteral nutrition (SEN). The aim of this study was to evaluate which kind of nutrition-SPN, SEN, IMPN, and IMEN-is most efficacious for reducing the incidence of complications after gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

An English literature search was carried out for randomized controlled trials published from January 1990 to February 2013 that evaluated the clinical efficacy of 4 kinds of nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery. A Bayesian framework was used to calculate the odds ratio between each treatment and the rank order.

RESULTS

Seventy-four studies (7572 participants) were included. According to the surface below the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) ordering from the best to the worst, IMEN was ranked first for reducing the incidence of 7 complications-any infection (SUCRA = 0.86), overall complication (SUCRA = 0.88), mortality (SUCRA = 0.81), wound infection (SUCRA = 0.79), intra-abdominal abscess (SUCRA = 0.98), anastomotic leak (SUCRA = 0.79), and sepsis (SUCRA = 0.92). Also, IMEN was ranked second for pneumonia and urinary tract infection. IMPN was ranked first for pneumonia (SUCRA = 0.81) and urinary tract infection (SUCRA = 0.86), third for mortality, and fourth for both intra-abdominal abscess and anastomotic leak. SPN showed an inferior efficacy for almost all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that IMEN outperformed other nutrition types for reducing complications and IMEN should be considered the best available option.

[Bacterial translocation: gap in the shield]

The gastrointestinal tract is not only regarded as a system where nutrient absorption takes place, but also as a vital barrier against intraluminal pathogens entering the circulation and the maintenance of immune homeostasis. Bacterial translocation is defined as the penetration of viable bacteria or bacterial compounds from the gastrointestinal tract to extraintestinal sites. This disorder has been described in several clinical conditions. The main promoting factors for bacterial translocation have been proposed to be changes in the intestinal microflora, mucosal barrier failure and defects in host immunity. The presence of bacterial translocation has been associated with higher complications and mortality rates; therefore it should be taken into account in the therapeutic strategies of patients with predisposing factors.

Nutrition therapy for critically ill and injured patients

BACKGROUND

Nutrition support has undergone significant advances in recent decades, revolutionizing the care of critically ill and injured patients. However, providing adequate and optimal nutrition therapy for such patients is very challenging: it requires careful attention and an understanding of the biology of the individual patient's disease or injury process, including insight into the consequent changes in nutrients needed.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to review the current principles and practices of providing nutrition therapy for critically ill and injured patients.

METHODS

Review of the literature and evidence-based guidelines.

RESULTS

The evidence demonstrates the need to understand the biology of nutrition therapy for critically ill and injured patients, tailored to their individual disease or injury, age, and comorbidities.

CONCLUSION

Nutrition therapy for critically ill and injured patients has become an important part of their overall care. No longer should we consider nutrition for critically ill and injured patients just as "support" but, rather, as "therapy", because it is, indeed, a key therapeutic modality.

Advantages of enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition

It is a strong and commonly held belief among nutrition clinicians that enteral nutrition is preferable to parenteral nutrition. We provide a narrative review of more recent studies and technical reviews comparing enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition. Despite significant weaknesses in the existing data, current literature continues to support the use of enteral nutrition in patients requiring nutrition support, over parenteral nutrition.

Perioperative nutrition support in cancer patients

Malnutrition and weight loss negatively affect outcomes in surgical cancer patients. Decades of research have sought to identify the most appropriate use of nutrition support in these patients. National and international guidelines help to direct clinicians' use of nutrition support in surgical patients, but a number of specific issues concerning the use of nutrition support continue to evolve. This review focuses on 5 key issues related to perioperative nutrition support in cancer patients: (1) Which perioperative cancer patients should receive nutrition support? (2) How can the nutrition status and requirements of these patients be optimally assessed? (3) What is the optimal route of administration (parenteral nutrition vs enteral nutrition) and composition of nutrition support in this setting? (4) When should feedings be initiated? (5) What is the role of glycemic control in these patients?

[Nutritional management of severely injured patients : Treatment between guidelines and reality]

Severe trauma triggers endocrine and inflammatory responses, leading to hyperglycaemia, insulin resistance and protein catabolism. Pharmacological and nutritional interventions cannot counteract these metabolic disturbances. However, adequate supply of energy and proteins may reduce excessive catabolism.Available guidelines recommend early use of enteral nutrition with energetic supply of about 25 kcal/kg and additional protein supply of 1.5 g/kg/day. These aims will be missed frequently by solely providing enteral nutrition in severely injured patients. Early supplemental parenteral nutrition should be used in these cases. Concomitantly, gastric paresis and paralytic ileus hampering enteral nutrition should be treated by propulsive and prokinetic drugs and by use of duodenal or jejunal site of application in selected cases.Euphoric hopes linked with intensified insulin therapy (IIT), targeting blood glucose levels <110 mg/dl in intensive care patients, had to be widely abandoned in recent years. The goal for blood glucose levels should be set at 180 mg/dl as the upper limit according to current knowledge, which promises to optimize the balance between efficacy and safety.

Surgery in esophageal and gastric cancer patients: what is the role for nutrition support in your daily practice?

Cancers of the esophagus and stomach have a major impact on patients' nutritional status by virtue of these organs' inherent digestive functions. Many patients with these cancers will require surgical intervention, which imposes further metabolic demands and compounds preexisting nutritional disorders. Patients with esophagogastric cancer are likely to have lost weight by the time the diagnosis is made. This fact alone is of clinical importance, because it is well known that patients who have lost weight will have higher operative mortality and morbidity rates than patients who maintain their weight. Initial assessment of patients with esophagogastric cancer should include a routine evaluation of nutritional status. This will allow the identification of patients who are at risk of complications, particularly in the postoperative setting. These patients should be targeted for specific nutritional support.

The relationships of nutrients, routes of delivery, and immunocompetence

Malnutrition has marked consequences on surgical outcomes. Adequate nutrition is important for the proper functioning of all organ systems, particularly the immune system. Determination of the type and amount of nutrient supplementation and the appropriate route of nutrient delivery is essential to bolster the immune system and enhance the host's response to stress. Correct administration of immunonutrients could lead to reductions in patient morbidity following major surgery, trauma, and critical illness.

The potential role of glucagon-like peptide-1 or its analogues in enhancing glycaemic control in critically ill adult patients

Intravenous insulin therapy is the gold standard therapy for glycaemic control in hyperglycaemic critically ill adult patients. However, hypoglycaemia remains a major concern in critically ill patients, even in some populations who are not receiving infused insulin. Furthermore, the influence of factors such as glycaemic variability and nutritional support may conceal any benefit of strict glycaemic control on morbidity and mortality in these patients. The recently revised guidelines of the American Diabetic Association/American College of Clinical Endocrinologists no longer advocate very tight glycaemic control or normalization of glucose levels in all critically ill patients. In the light of various concerns over the optimal glucose level and means to achieve such control, the use of glucagon-like peptide-1 or its analogues administered intravenously may represent an interesting therapeutic option.

Evaluation of enteral formulas for nutrition, health, and quality of life among stroke patients

Enteral nutritional support has been used via tube feeding for dysphagic stroke patients. We performed long and short term trials to evaluate the effects of commercial enteral nutritional supports on nutrition and health in stroke patients (mRS = 3~5) and quality of life in their caregivers. For a long term study, we recruited chronic (≥ 1 yrs) stroke patients (n = 6) and administered them 6 cans/day (1,200 kcal) of the commercial enteral formula N for 6 months according to IRB-approved protocol. We collected peripheral blood at 0, 2, 4 and 6 months. For a short term study, we recruited acute (≤ 3 months) stroke patients (n = 12) and randomly administered them two different commercial enteral formulas, N or J, for 2 weeks. We collected their blood at 0, 4, 7 and 14 day of the administration. Blood samples were analyzed to quantify 19 health and nutritional biomarkers and an oxidative stress biomarker, malondialdehyde (MDA). In order to evaluate quality of life, we also obtained the sense of competence questionnaire (SCQ) from all caregivers at 'before' and 'after trials'. As results, the enteral formula, N, improved hemoglobin and hematocrit levels in the long term trial and maintained most of biomarkers within normal ranges. The SCQ levels of caregivers were improved in the long term treatment (P < 0.05). In a case of the short term study, both of enteral formulas were helpful to maintain nutritional status of the patients. In addition, MDA levels were decreased in the acute patients following formula consumption (0.05 < P < 0.1). Most of health and nutrition outcomes were not different, even though there is a big difference in price of the two products. Thus, we evaluate the formula N has equal nutritional efficacy compared to the formula J. In addition, long term use of enteral formula N can be useful to health and nutrition of stroke patients, and the quality of life for their caregivers.

Combining enteral with parenteral nutrition to improve postoperative glucose control

The provision of parenteral nutrition (PN) to ‘stressed’ patients often results in hyperglycaemia, which may be detrimental. In animal models limited amounts of enteral nutrition (EN) improve intestinal integrity and stimulate intestinal incretin production, which may lead to improved glucose control. We set out to assess if combining EN with PN results in improved glucose homeostasis rather than PN given alone. We conducted a randomised trial in a university teaching hospital of patients undergoing a ‘curative’ oesophagectomy for adenocarcinoma. Differences between the two intervention groups were assessed for continuous glucose measurement, insulin sensitivity using insulin tolerance tests (ITT) and homeostasis model analysis (HOMA), the incretin glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and intestinal permeability. The combination of PN with EN resulted in lower interstitial glucose concentrations (P = 0·002), reduced insulin resistance, improved insulin sensitivity (HOMA-insulin resistance (IR)P = 0·045; HOMA βP = 0·037; ITTP = 0·006), improved intestinal permeability (P < 0·001) and increased GIP (P = 0·01) when compared with PN alone. The combination of EN with PN, when compared with PN alone, results in reduced glucose concentrations, reduced insulin resistance, increased incretins and improvements in intestinal permeability.

Clinical features and long-term survival in chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction and enteric dysmotility

OBJECTIVE

Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIP) is the most severe form of intestinal dysmotility. Enteric dysmotility (ED) has been proposed as a new diagnostic label for patients with disturbed intestinal motility and severe symptoms but no radiological signs of pseudo-obstruction. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical features, small-bowel manometry findings and long-term survival in patients with CIP and ED.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data collected during a 16-year period from 1987 to 2002 were retrospectively analysed and followed-up through 2007 in a tertiary referral centre. The study comprised 55 patients (41 F, median age 42 years, range 23-76) with CIP and 70 patients (63 F, median age 39 years, range 18-71) with ED.

RESULTS

The median observation time was 9.9 years (range 5.2-20.1). Nineteen patients with CIP (35%) and 9 patients with ED (13%) died. Survival among patients with ED was significantly better (p<0.05). Patients with CIP (49%) needed parenteral nutrition more often than patients with ED (14%). Small-bowel manometry showed similar abnormalities in the two groups but absence of a fed motor response to meals was seen in 16/43 patients with CIP compared to none with ED (p<0.001), sustained periods of uncoordinated phasic activity were more common (p<0.05) in CIP patients (23/45) than in ED patients (19/70) and severe hypomotility was only seen in 7 patients with CIP.

CONCLUSIONS

CIP and ED differ with respect to severity of measurable physiological derangement, nutritional needs and long-term prognosis. Our findings indicate that CIP and ED are different entities that require different approaches to management.

The ESPEN clinical practice Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: present status and perspectives for future research

The ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition (PN) reflect current scientific knowledge in the field of clinical nutrition in adults. They summarize the indications for PN and its anticipated outcomes in respect of the underlying disease, nutritional status and quality of life. They are companion documents to the ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition and follow the same general format. They address the influence of the underlying disease on the patient's nutritional status, and that of malnutrition on the outcome of the disease. Contraindications to and complications of PN are considered, together with comparative analyses of the roles of the parenteral and enteral routes in different illness states. The quality and strength of the supporting literature has been graded according to the criteria of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Hence, meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials (level of evidence Ia) or at least one randomised clinical trial (level of evidence Ib) translate to a Grade A recommendation. Levels of evidence IIa, IIb and III are attributed respectively to: at least one well-designed controlled trial without randomisation; at least one other type of well-designed, quasi-experimental study; or well-designed non-experimental descriptive studies such as comparative studies, correlation studies, case-control studies; each of these sustains a Grade B recommendation. Grade C recommendations reflect expert opinion and/or the clinical experience of respected authorities (level of evidence IV). Each of the 11 sets of PN Guidelines was devised by an international working group, the total faculty comprising no fewer than 87 experts from 16 European/Mediterranean countries, each group's contributions being co-ordinated by a designated chairman. Once each guideline had been approved by all the members of the relevant working group, this version was reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers (one selected from ESPEN's Education and Clinical Practice Committee, and at least one from outside the ESPEN committee structure). Following this review each guideline was hosted in draft form on the public pages of the ESPEN website for at least one month to permit the receipt of comments or suggestions from any interested party. At this point the Guidelines were reviewed and revised again by the original working group chairman and submitted to the Clinical Nutrition editorial process. At least 3 further reviewers were selected by the Journal's editorial office for each guideline, in line with the normal selection process. Final revisions were performed by the Chairmen of the working groups, and by ourselves as commissioning editors of the whole project. More than 300 evidence-based recommendations are now presented. Fewer than one sixth of the recommendations are Grade A, and disappointingly, but unsurprisingly, more than 50% are Grade C. The need for more and better controlled trials in the field remains apparent.

Comparison of enteral nutrition with combined enteral and parenteral nutrition in post-pancreaticoduodenectomy patients: a pilot study

Background

Many clinical studies have demonstrated that early postoperative enteral nutrition (EN) improved the postroperative course. Post-pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), patients tend to suffer from postoperative nausea, abdominal distention, and diarrhoea, causing difficulty in the introduction of EN. In this pilot study, we investigated the appropriate nutritional mode post-pancreatic surgery.

Methods

Between October 2006 and March 2007 2 postoperative nutritional methods were implemented in 17 patients in a prospective single-centere study. Eight patients received only enteral nutrition (EN group) and 9 patients received enteral nutrition combined with parenteral nutrition (EN + PN group).

Results

There were no differences in the patient characteristics and postoperative morbidity between the 2 groups. The rate of discontinuance of enteral feeding was significantly high in the EN group, and the duration of enteral feeding was significantly longer in the EN + PN group. The central venous line was retained for a significantly longer period in the EN + PN group, but there was no difference in the frequency of catheter-related infection between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

EN combined with PN is more adequate for patients after pancreatic surgery.

ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: intensive care

Nutritional support in the intensive care setting represents a challenge but it is fortunate that its delivery and monitoring can be followed closely. Enteral feeding guidelines have shown the evidence in favor of early delivery and the efficacy of use of the gastrointestinal tract. Parenteral nutrition (PN) represents an alternative or additional approach when other routes are not succeeding (not necessarily having failed completely) or when it is not possible or would be unsafe to use other routes. The main goal of PN is to deliver a nutrient mixture closely related to requirements safely and to avoid complications. This nutritional approach has been a subject of debate over the past decades. PN carries the considerable risk of overfeeding which can be as deleterious as underfeeding. Therefore the authors will present not only the evidence available regarding the indications for PN, its implementation, the energy required, its possible complementary use with enteral nutrition, but also the relative importance of the macro- and micronutrients in the formula proposed for the critically ill patient. Data on long-term survival (expressed as 6 month survival) will also be considered a relevant outcome measure. Since there is a wide range of interpretations regarding the content of PN and great diversity in its practice, our guidance will necessarily reflect these different views. The papers available are very heterogeneous in quality and methodology (amount of calories, nutrients, proportion of nutrients, patients, etc.) and the different meta-analyses have not always taken this into account. Use of exclusive PN or complementary PN can lead to confusion, calorie targets are rarely achieved, and different nutrients continue to be used in different proportions. The present guidelines are the result of the analysis of the available literature, and acknowledging these limitations, our recommendations are intentionally largely expressed as expert opinions.

Nutrition support for bone marrow transplant patients

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002. Bone marrow transplantation involves administration of toxic chemotherapy and infusion of marrow cells. After treatment, patients can develop poor appetite, mucositis and gastrointestinal failure, leading to malnutrition. To prevent this, parenteral nutrition (PN) support is often first choice but is associated with increased risk of infection. Enteral nutrition (EN) is an alternative, as is addition of substrates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy of EN or PN support for patients receiving bone marrow transplant.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL in November 2000 and subsequently June 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared one form of nutrition support with another, or control, for bone marrow transplant patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Twenty nine studies were identified. Data were collected on participants' characteristics; adverse effects; neutropaenia; % change in body weight; graft versus host disease; and survival.

MAIN RESULTS

In two studies (82 participants) glutamine mouthwash reduced number of days patients were neutropenic (6.82 days, 95%CI (1.67 to 11.98) P = 0.009) compared with placebo. Three studies reported (103 participants) that patients receiving PN with glutamine had reduced hospital stay, 6.62 d (95%CI 3.47 to 9.77, P = 0.00004) compared with patients receiving standard PN. However, in the update a further study was added (147 participants) which altered the pooled results: duration in hospital may be increased for those who receive PN with additional glutamine - 0.22 days (95%CI (1.29 to 1.72). Two other studies reported that (73 participants) patients receiving PN plus glutamine had reduced incidence of positive blood cultures (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.65, P = 0.006) compared to those receiving standard PN. However, a study from the update (113 participants in total) showed the odds of having a positive blood culture have increased but are still less likely if the patient receives PN with glutamine compared to standard PN (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.04). When patients were given PN versus IV hydration, (25 participants) patients receiving PN had a higher incidence of line infections (OR 21.23, 95%CI 4.15 to 108.73, P = 0.0002) compared to those receiving standard IV fluids. The update identified one study which recognised that (55 participants) those who received IV were likely to spend less time in hospital, 3.30 days (95%CI -0.38 to 6.98, P = 0.08), although this result was not significant. As reported in the original review there remains no evaluable data to properly compare PN with EN.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this update an additional study that compared PN and Glutamine versus standard PN showed that the certain benefits of parenteral nutrition with added glutamine compared to standard PN for reducing hospital stay are no longer definite. When PN with glutamine is compared with standard PN, patients may not leave hospital earlier, but do have reduced incidence of positive blood cultures, than those receiving standard PN. Where possible use of intravenous fluids and oral diet should be considered as a preference to parenteral nutrition, however, in the event of a patient suffering severe gastrointestinal failure even with a trial of enteral feeding, PN with the addition of glutamine could be considered.

Nutrition support for bone marrow transplant patients

BACKGROUND

This is an update of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002. Bone marrow transplantation involves administration of toxic chemotherapy and infusion of marrow cells. After treatment, patients can develop poor appetite, mucositis and gastrointestinal failure, leading to malnutrition. To prevent this, parenteral nutrition (PN) support is often first choice but is associated with increased risk of infection. Enteral nutrition (EN) is an alternative, as is addition of substrates.

OBJECTIVES

To determine efficacy of EN or PN support for patients receiving bone marrow transplant.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL in November 2000 and subsequently June 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that compared one form of nutrition support with another, or control, for bone marrow transplant patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Twenty nine studies were identified. Data were collected on participants' characteristics; adverse effects; neutropaenia; % change in body weight; graft versus host disease; and survival.

MAIN RESULTS

In two studies (82 participants) glutamine mouthwash reduced number of days patients were neutropenic (6.82 days, 95%CI (1.67 to 11.98) P = 0.009) compared with placebo. Three studies reported (103 participants) that patients receiving PN with glutamine had reduced hospital stay, 6.62 d (95%CI 3.47 to 9.77, P = 0.00004) compared with patients receiving standard PN. However, in the update a further study was added (147 participants) which altered the pooled results: duration in hospital may be increased for those who receive PN with additional glutamine - 0.22 days (95%CI (1.29 to 1.72). Two other studies reported that (73 participants) patients receiving PN plus glutamine had reduced incidence of positive blood cultures (OR 0.23, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.65, P = 0.006) compared to those receiving standard PN. However, a study from the update (113 participants in total) showed the odds of having a positive blood culture have increased but are still less likely if the patient receives PN with glutamine compared to standard PN (OR 0.46, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.04). When patients were given PN versus IV hydration, (25 participants) patients receiving PN had a higher incidence of line infections (OR 21.23, 95%CI 4.15 to 108.73, P = 0.0002) compared to those receiving standard IV fluids. The update identified one study which recognised that (55 participants) those who received IV were likely to spend less time in hospital, 3.30 days (95%CI -0.38 to 6.98, P = 0.08), although this result was not significant. As reported in the original review there remains no evaluable data to properly compare PN with EN.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this update an additional study that compared PN and Glutamine versus standard PN showed that the certain benefits of parenteral nutrition with added glutamine compared to standard PN for reducing hospital stay are no longer definite. When PN with glutamine is compared with standard PN, patients may not leave hospital earlier, but do have reduced incidence of positive blood cultures, than those receiving standard PN. Where possible use of intravenous fluids and oral diet should be considered as a preference to parenteral nutrition, however, in the event of a patient suffering severe gastrointestinal failure even with a trial of enteral feeding, PN with the addition of glutamine could be considered.

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition after gastrointestinal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in the English literature

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies recommend the use of enteral nutrition (EN), the benefit of EN after elective gastrointestinal surgery has not been comprehensively demonstrated as through a meta-analysis. Our aim is to determine whether enteral nutrition is more beneficial than parenteral nutrition.

METHODS

A search was conducted on Medline, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library electronic databases, and bibliographic reviews. The trials were based on randomization, gastrointestinal surgery, and the reporting of at least one of the following end points: any complication, any infectious complication, mortality, wound infection and dehiscence, anastomotic leak, intraabdominal abscess, pneumonia, respiratory failure, urinary tract infection, renal failure, any adverse effect, and duration of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine trials, which included 2,552 patients, met the criteria. EN was beneficial in the reduction of any complication (relative risk (RR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.99; P = 0.04), any infectious complication (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86; P = 0.001), anastomotic leak (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.95; P = 0.03), intraabdominal abscess (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P = 0.03), and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.25-0.38; P = 0.02). There were no clear benefits in any of the other complications.

CONCLUSION

The present findings would lead us to recommend the use of EN rather than PN when possible and indicated.

A Review of Surgical Nutrition

Malnutrition remains a common problem in surgical patients and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is imperative that all surgical patients undergo nutritional screening on admission to highlight malnourished or at risk patients and implement a nutritional plan. Nutrition can be delivered by oral supplements, enteral or parenteral feeding, the route depending on an individual's requirements and surgical condition. Enteral feeding has largely been regarded as superior to parenteral feeding, as it is cheaper, safer and “more physiological” but studies show this is not always the case. This article reviews the basics of surgical nutrition and assesses the evidence supporting enteral versus parenteral nutrition.

Standardized concept for the treatment of gastrointestinal dysmotility in critically ill patients--current status and future options

Inhibition of gastrointestinal motility is a major problem in critically ill patients. Motor stasis gives rise to subsequent complications including intolerance to enteral feeding, enhanced permeability of the atrophic intestinal mucosa and conditions as severe as systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis and multiple organ failure. Although the diagnosis of motility disturbances in critically ill patients is difficult, the type and site of the disturbance are important to consider in the analysis of the condition and in the choice of therapeutic approach. The pharmacological treatment of impaired gastrointestinal motility is difficult to handle for the clinician, because the underlying mechanisms are complex and not fully understood and the availability of pharmacological treatment options is limited. In addition, there is a lack of controlled studies on which to build an evidence-based treatment concept for critically ill patients. Notwithstanding this situation, there has been remarkable progress in the understanding of the integrated regulation of gastrointestinal motility in health and disease. These advances, which largely relate to the organization of the enteric nervous system and its signaling mechanisms, enable the intensivist to develop a standardized concept for the use of prokinetic agents in the treatment of impaired gastrointestinal motility in critically ill patients.

Total parenteral nutrition causes circumferential intestinal atrophy, remodeling of the intestinal wall, and redistribution of eosinophils in the rat gastrointestinal tract

Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) is held to cause intestinal atrophy and weaken mechanical and immunological barriers. To monitor the degree of atrophy caused by TPN, female Sprague-Dawley rats were, for 8 days, maintained on TPN (n = 6) and compared to identically housed controls given food and water ad libitum (n = 6). Specimens from jejunum, ileum, and colon were taken for histology and morphometric analysis. Topographic distribution and presence of eosinophils, by eosinophil peroxidase (EPO) staining, were examined in the gastric fundus, jejunum, ileum, and colon. Atrophy in terms of a markedly reduced circumference was noted throughout the intestinal tract in all rats subjected to TPN. The width of jejunal and ileal villi was narrowed and the length of jejunal villi was decreased. Furthermore, submucosal thickness in the jejunum and ileum increased. The height of ileal enterocytes remained unaltered. The number of goblet cells decreased in jejunal but not in ileal villi. The Paneth cells, suggested to play important roles in innate defense, increased in size. In the gastric fundus a marked increase in eosinophils was revealed predominantly in the mucosa and submucosa. The number and distribution of jejunal and ileal eosinophils were identical to those of controls. In colon from TPN rats, a redistribution of eosinophils was noted, causing a "band-like" accumulation of eosinophils in the basal portion of the mucosa. In conclusion, TPN causes gut atrophy and an increase in Paneth cell size. Eosinophils increase in number in the gastric fundus and a topographic redistribution occurs in the colon.

Who benefits from nutritional support: what is the evidence?

Nutritional support, including oral nutritional supplements, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition, can be an important part of the management of any patient. Malnutrition is common and costly, clinically and financially, if left untreated. In patients with, or at risk of, malnutrition, the appropriate use of nutritional support can prevent complications arising, produce other clinical, functional and financial benefits, and can be life saving in some situations. This article discusses the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effectiveness of nutritional support.

Review article: bacterial translocation in the critically ill--evidence and methods of prevention

BACKGROUND

Delayed sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and multiorgan failure remain major causes of morbidity and mortality on intensive care units. One factor thought to be important in the aetiology of SIRS is failure of the intestinal barrier resulting in bacterial translocation and subsequent sepsis.

AIM

This review summarizes the current knowledge about bacterial translocation and methods to prevent it.

METHODS

Relevant studies during 1966-2006 were identified from a literature search. Factors, which detrimentally affect intestinal barrier function, are discussed, as are methods that may attenuate bacterial translocation in the critically ill patient.

RESULTS

Methodological problems in confirming bacterial translocation have restricted investigations to patients undergoing laparotomy. There are only limited data available relating to specific interventions that might preserve intestinal barrier function or limit bacterial translocation in the intensive care setting. These can be categorized broadly into pre-epithelial, epithelial and post-epithelial interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

A better understanding of factors that influence translocation could result in the implementation of interventions which contribute to improved patient outcomes. Glutamine supplementation, targeted nutritional intervention, maintaining splanchnic flow, the judicious use of antibiotics and directed selective gut decontamination regimens hold some promise of limiting bacterial translocation. Further research is required.

Optimal nutritional support

There is ongoing debate about the respective roles of enteral and parenteral nutrition. The present short review suggests that these two feeding modalities are not mutually exclusive and that optimal nutritional support may necessitate the concomitant administration of enteral together with parenteral nutrition.