Non-inferiority comparative clinical trial between early oral REFEEDING and usual oral REFEEDING in predicted mild acute biliary pancreatitis

Effects of Early Versus Delayed Feeding in Patients With Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to summarize the optimal strategy for early feeding in patients with acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

The search was undertaken in electronic databases, which compared early with delayed feeding in acute pancreatitis. The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay (LOHS). The second outcomes were intolerance of refeeding, mortality, and total cost of each patient. This meta-analysis followed the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses" guideline. Research is registered by PROSPERO, CRD42020192133.

RESULTS

A total of 20 trials involving 2168 patients were included, randomly assigned to the early feeding group (N = 1033) and delayed feeding group (N = 1135). The LOHS was significantly lower in the early feeding group than the delayed feeding group (mean difference: -2.35, 95% CI: -2.89 to -1.80; P < 0.0001), no matter the mild or severe subgroup ( Pint = 0.69). The secondary outcome of feeding intolerance and mortality were no significant difference (risk ratio: 0.96, 0.40 to 2.16, P = 0.87 and 0.91, 0.57 to 1.46, P = 0.69; respectively). Moreover, the hospitalization cost was significantly less in the early feeding group, resulting in an average savings of 50%. In patients with severe pancreatitis, early feeding after 24 hours may be beneficial ( Pint = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Early oral feeding can significantly reduce the LOHS and hospitalization costs in patients with acute pancreatitis without increasing feeding intolerance or mortality. In patients with severe pancreatitis, early feeding after 24 hours may be beneficial.

Impact of solid food provision within 24 hours of hospital admission on clinical outcomes for adult patients with acute pancreatitis: A literature review

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common gastrointestinal disease necessitating hospitalization, with incidence increasing both in the United States and worldwide. Some recent guidelines for hospitalized patients with AP recommend initiation of oral feeding within 24 h of admission; however, a lack of clarity regarding feeding time and diet orders in clinical practice still exists. This review presents recent randomized clinical trials regarding feeding administration for patients with mild to moderate AP. The results indicate that initiation of a low-fat solid oral diet within 24 h of admission does not increase the instance of negative outcomes and may also provide positive benefits to patients with AP.

Effects of immediate or early oral feeding on acute pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The timing of oral refeeding can affect length of stay (LOS) and recovery of acute pancreatitis (AP). However, the optimal timing for oral refeeding is still controversial for AP. This meta-analysis investigated the effects of immediate or early versus delayed oral feeding on mild and moderate AP, regardless of improvement in clinical signs or laboratory indicators.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on data from Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of science, and CBM before August 2021. Two researchers independently used Stata16 to extract and analyse study data. Random effect model was performed for meta-analysis to calculate the risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

8 RCTs were selected, including 748 patients with mild to moderate AP. Patients in IOR (Immediate or early Oral Refeeding) group had less costs [SMD -0.83, 95%CI (-1.17, -0.5), P < 0.001] and shorter LOS [SMD -1.01, 95%CI (-1.17, -0.85), P < 0.001] than the DOR (Delayed Oral Refeeding) group patients. However, there was no difference in mortality [RR 0.54, 95%CI (0.11, 2.62), P = 0.44], pain relapse rate [RR 0.58, 95%CI (0.25, 1.35), P = 0.27], feeding intolerance rate [RR 0.61, 95%CI (0.28, 1.3), P = 0.2], AP progression rate [RR 0.21, 95%CI (0.04, 1.07), P = 0.06] and overall complications rate [RR 0.41, 95%CI (0.17, 1.01), P = 0.05] between the IOR and DOR groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited data suggest that IOR could reduce LOS and costs without increasing adverse events in mild to moderate AP.