Parenteral Hyperalimentation in Patients with Advanced Neoplastic Disease

Protein Loss after Radical Mastectomy as a Cause of Postoperative Hypoalbuminemia

The concentrations of serum albumin and the cumulative loss of albumin through the drainage tubes were followed in 14 patients who underwent radical mastectomy for cancer. The concentration of serum albumin declined during the postoperative period, and the nadir was on the 5th day. On the first 5 days a good correlation was observed between hypoalbuminemia and loss of albumin from the wound. After this period, hypoalbuminemia persisted unchanged although small quantities of albumin continued to be lost through the drains. It is concluded that in surgery complicated by abundant serum discharge, the albumin loss may be the main cause of postoperative hypoalbuminemia.

Effect of Supportive Intravenous Hyperalimentation on the Nutritional Status of Cancer Patients

The effect of intravenous hyperalimentation on the nutritional status of 84 cancer patients treated at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, has been evaluated. The body weight increased in 78 % of patients, mid upper arm circumference in 93 %, triceps skinfold in 73 %, mid upper arm-muscle circumference in 73 %, creatinine/height index in 30 %, serum albumin in 32 %, transferrin in 35 %, total peripheral lymphocytes in 38 %. Lymphocyte blastogenesis increased in 74 % of the patients examined and skin tests were converted from negative to positive in about 20 % of patients. In addition 8 out of 18 patients responsive to IVH benefited from chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy indicating that the nutritional repletion of the host did not significantly affect the growth of the tumor. These findings support the opinion that neoplastic cachexia may depend partially on malnutrition and can be often reversed by IVH. Moreover, IVH might have an adjunctive role as potentiator of chemotherapy which however must be confirmed by clinical trials.

Parenteral Hyperalimentation in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer

Sixty-six patients with locally advanced or diffuse gastrointestinal cancer or suffering from major complications due to surgery or radiation therapy, were treated with continuous parenteral hyperalimentation at the Istituto Nazionale Tumori of Milan for a cumulative period of 2101 study-days. Patients were divided into 4 groups: Group 1, malnourished patients with advanced gastrointestinal malignancy; Group 2, patients with gastrointestinal fistulae due to simple surgical complications or to radiation injury of the bowel; Group 3, patients with major postoperative complications; Group i, surgical patients with gastric or colo-rectal carcinoma treated preoperatively. Mean infusional regime for the various groups included 42–56 Cal/kg/day and 1.5 to 2.4 g amino acid/kg/day, and the duration of the treatment ranged from 7 to 144 days. The results obtained show that protein calorie depletion of cancer patients may depend on malnutrition and that it can be reversed by parenteral nutrition, in patients, that are candidates for surgical treatment or those who qualify for chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Parenteral nutrition has a fundamental role in patients with fistulae, even if much attention must be paid to the external care of the fistula and the wound. In addition, nutritional support by intravenous feeding has proven essential for a successful outcome of patients with major postoperative complications. Preoperative protein repletion and central venous nutrition in patients who require gastrointestinal surgery represent a modern advance in the field of cancer surgery.

Nutrition support in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of disease-related malnutrition in Western European hospitals is estimated to be about 30%. There is no consensus whether poor nutritional status causes poorer clinical outcome or if it is merely associated with it. The intention with all forms of nutrition support is to increase uptake of essential nutrients and improve clinical outcome. Previous reviews have shown conflicting results with regard to the effects of nutrition support.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of nutrition support versus no intervention, treatment as usual, or placebo in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid SP), Embase (Ovid SP), LILACS (BIREME), and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/ictrp); ClinicalTrials.gov; Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP); Google Scholar; and BIOSIS, as well as relevant bibliographies of review articles and personal files. All searches are current to February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We include randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication type, publication date, and language, comparing nutrition support versus control in hospitalised adults at nutritional risk. We exclude trials assessing non-standard nutrition support.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group. We used trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias). We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control for the risks of random errors. We considered a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We used GRADE methodology. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 244 randomised clinical trials with 28,619 participants that met our inclusion criteria. We considered all trials to be at high risk of bias. Two trials accounted for one-third of all included participants. The included participants were heterogenous with regard to disease (20 different medical specialties). The experimental interventions were parenteral nutrition (86 trials); enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) (80 trials); oral nutrition support (55 trials); mixed experimental intervention (12 trials); general nutrition support (9 trials); and fortified food (2 trials). The control interventions were treatment as usual (122 trials); no intervention (107 trials); and placebo (15 trials). In 204/244 trials, the intervention lasted three days or more.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term mortality (end of intervention). The absolute risk was 8.3% across the control groups compared with 7.8% (7.1% to 8.5%) in the intervention groups, based on the risk ratio (RR) of 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.03, P = 0.16, 21,758 participants, 114 trials, low quality of evidence). We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for long-term mortality (maximum follow-up). The absolute risk was 13.2% in the control group compared with 12.2% (11.6% to 13%) following nutritional interventions based on a RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, P = 0.03, 23,170 participants, 127 trials, low quality of evidence). Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.We found no evidence of a difference between nutrition support and control for short-term serious adverse events. The absolute risk was 9.9% in the control groups versus 9.2% (8.5% to 10%), with nutrition based on the RR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.01, P = 0.07, 22,087 participants, 123 trials, low quality of evidence). At long-term follow-up, the reduction in the risk of serious adverse events was 1.5%, from 15.2% in control groups to 13.8% (12.9% to 14.7%) following nutritional support (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.97, P = 0.004, 23,413 participants, 137 trials, low quality of evidence). However, the Trial Sequential Analysis showed we only had enough information to assess a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more. A risk ratio reduction of 10% or more could be rejected.Trial Sequential Analysis of enteral nutrition alone showed that enteral nutrition might reduce serious adverse events at maximum follow-up in people with different diseases. We could find no beneficial effect of oral nutrition support or parenteral nutrition support on all-cause mortality and serious adverse events in any subgroup.Only 16 trials assessed health-related quality of life. We performed a meta-analysis of two trials reporting EuroQoL utility score at long-term follow-up and found very low quality of evidence for effects of nutritional support on quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01; 3961 participants, two trials). Trial Sequential Analyses showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject clinically relevant intervention effects on quality of life.Nutrition support may increase weight at short-term follow-up (MD 1.32 kg, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.00, 5445 participants, 68 trials, very low quality of evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low-quality evidence for the effects of nutrition support on mortality and serious adverse events. Based on the results of our review, it does not appear to lead to a risk ratio reduction of approximately 10% or more in either all-cause mortality or serious adverse events at short-term and long-term follow-up.There is very low-quality evidence for an increase in weight with nutrition support at the end of treatment in hospitalised adults determined to be at nutritional risk. The effects of nutrition support on all remaining outcomes are unclear.Despite the clinically heterogenous population and the high risk of bias of all included trials, our analyses showed limited signs of statistical heterogeneity. Further trials may be warranted, assessing enteral nutrition (tube-feeding) for different patient groups. Future trials ought to be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and low risks of random errors, and they also ought to assess health-related quality of life.