Use of a Low-carbohydrate Enteral Nutrition Formula with Effective Inhibition of Hypoglycemia and Post-infusion Hyperglycemia in Non-diabetic Patients Fed via a Jejunostomy Tube

Feeding gastrostomy and duodenostomy using the round ligament of the liver versus conventional feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis

Esophageal cancer patients require enteral nutritional support after esophagectomy. Conventional feeding enterostomy to the jejunum (FJ) is occasionally associated with small bowel obstruction because the jejunum is fixed to the abdominal wall. Feeding through an enteral feeding tube inserted through the reconstructed gastric tube (FG) or the duodenum (FD) using the round ligament of the liver have been suggested as alternatives. This meta-analysis aimed to compare short-term outcomes between FG/FD and FJ. Studies published prior to May 2022 that compared FG or FD with FJ in cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy were identified via electronic literature search. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to calculate Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies met inclusion criteria to yield a total of 1687 patients. Compared with the FJ group, the odds of small bowel obstruction (OR 0.09; 95% CI, 0.02-0.33), catheter site infection (OR 0.18; 95% CI, 0.06-0.51) and anastomotic leakage (OR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32-0.89) were lower for the FG/FD group. Odds of pneumonia, recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, chylothorax and hospital mortality did not significantly differ between the groups. The length of hospital stay was shorter for the FG/FD group (median difference, -10.83; 95% CI, -18.55 to -3.11). FG and FD using the round ligament of the liver were associated with lower odds of small bowel obstruction, catheter site infection and anastomotic leakage than FJ in esophageal cancer patients who underwent esophagectomy.

Mitigation of Rebound Hyperglycemia With Real-Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring Data and Predictive Alerts

BACKGROUND

Excess carbohydrate intake during hypoglycemia can lead to rebound hyperglycemia (RH). We investigated associations between RH and use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and an rtCGM system's predictive alert.

METHODS

RH events were series of sensor glucose values (SGVs) >180 mg/dL starting within two hours of an antecedent SGV <70 mg/dL. Events were characterized by their frequency, duration (consecutive SGVs >180 mg/dL × five minutes), and severity (area under the glucose concentration-time curve). To assess the impact of rtCGM, data gathered during the four-week baseline phase (without rtCGM) and four-week follow-up phase (with rtCGM) from 75 participants in the HypoDE clinical trial (NCT02671968) of hypoglycemia-unaware individuals were compared. To assess the impact of predictive alerts, we identified a convenience sample of 24 518 users of an rtCGM system without predictive alerts who transitioned to a system whose predictive alert signals an SGV ≤55 mg/dL within 20 minutes (Dexcom G5 and G6, respectively). RH events from periods of blinded versus unblinded rtCGM wear and from periods of G5 and G6 wear were compared with paired t tests.

RESULTS

Compared to RH events in the HypoDE baseline phase, the mean frequency, duration, and severity of events fell by 14%, 12%, and 23%, respectively, in the follow-up phase (all P < .05). Compared to RH events during G5 use, the mean frequency, duration, and severity of events fell by 7%, 8%, and 13%, respectively, during G6 use (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Rebound hypreglycemia can be objectively quantified and mitigated with rtCGM and rtCGM-based predictive alerts.

Prognostic outcomes after direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy in elderly patients: comparison with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (DPEJ) is an alternative method of enteral feeding to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Although long-term outcomes of PEG have been reported, little is known regarding the outcomes of DPEJ.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted including 115 and 651 consecutive attempts of DPEJ and PEG, respectively, in a total of 766 elderly patients between April 2004 and March 2019. Patients' clinical background, procedural and long-term outcomes, survival analysis, and cause of death were analyzed.

RESULTS

Successful placement rates were 93.9% and 97.1% for DPEJ and PEG, respectively. There was no significant difference in procedure-related adverse events (AEs) between the DPEJ and PEG groups. Rates of pneumonia, vomiting, and upper GI bleeding were significantly lower, whereas those of fistula enlargement and ileus were significantly higher in the DPEJ group as long-term AEs. The median survival periods were 694 and 734 days for DPEJ and PEG, respectively, with no significant differences between the 2 groups. Multivariate analysis revealed that age 80 years old or older, C-reactive protein level of 1.0 mg/dL or higher, and the presence of diabetes were independent risk factors for mortality after DPEJ. Respiratory tract infection was the primary cause of death in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DPEJ is considered a safe and feasible method of access for enteral feeding as well as PEG. Although the survival period after DPEJ may be expected to be as long as that with PEG, DPEJ-specific AEs should be kept in mind on long-term feeding.