Parenteral nutrition and preOp preparation in prevention of post-operative insulin resistance in gastrointestinal carcinoma

Preoperative nutrition therapy in people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND

Poor preoperative nutritional status has been consistently linked to an increase in postoperative complications and worse surgical outcomes. We updated a review first published in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of preoperative nutritional therapy compared to usual care in people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trial registries on 28 March 2023. We searched reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people undergoing gastrointestinal surgery and receiving preoperative nutritional therapy, including parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition or oral nutrition supplements, compared to usual care. We only included nutritional therapy that contained macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate and fat) and micronutrients, and excluded studies that evaluated single nutrients. We included studies regardless of the nutritional status of participants, that is, well-nourished participants, participants at risk of malnutrition, or mixed populations. We excluded studies in people undergoing pancreatic and liver surgery. Our primary outcomes were non-infectious complications, infectious complications and length of hospital stay. Our secondary outcomes were nutritional aspects, quality of life, change in macronutrient intake, biochemical parameters, 30-day perioperative mortality and adverse effects.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodology. We assessed risk of bias using the RoB 1 tool and applied the GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs reporting 19 comparisons (2164 participants). Seven studies were new for this update. Participants' ages ranged from 21 to 79 years, and 62% were men. Three RCTs used parenteral nutrition, two used enteral nutrition, eight used immune-enhancing nutrition and six used standard oral nutrition supplements. All studies included mixed groups of well-nourished and malnourished participants; they used different methods to identify malnutrition and reported this in different ways. Not all the included studies were conducted within an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programme, which is now current clinical practice in most hospitals undertaking GI surgery. We were concerned about risk of bias in all the studies and 14 studies were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. We are uncertain if parenteral nutrition has any effect on the number of participants who had a non-infectious complication (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.02; 3 RCTs, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence); infectious complication (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.80; 3 RCTs, 260 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (mean difference (MD) 5.49 days, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.96; 2 RCTs, 135 participants; very low-certainty evidence). None of the enteral nutrition studies reported non-infectious complications as an outcome. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of enteral nutrition on the number of participants with infectious complications after surgery (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.38; 2 RCTs, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD 5.10 days, 95% CI -1.03 to 11.23; 2 RCTs, 126 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Immune-enhancing nutrition compared to controls may result in little to no effect on the number of participants experiencing a non-infectious complication (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.00; 8 RCTs, 1020 participants; low-certainty evidence), infectious complications (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.04; 7 RCTs, 925 participants; low-certainty evidence) or length of hospital stay (MD -1.22 days, 95% CI -2.80 to 0.35; 6 RCTs, 688 participants; low-certainty evidence). Standard oral nutrition supplements may result in little to no effect on number of participants with a non-infectious complication (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.20; 5 RCTs, 473 participants; low-certainty evidence) or the length of hospital stay (MD -0.65 days, 95% CI -2.33 to 1.03; 3 RCTs, 299 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of oral nutrition supplements on the number of participants with an infectious complication (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.27; 5 RCTs, 473 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Sensitivity analysis based on malnourished and weight-losing participants found oral nutrition supplements may result in a slight reduction in infections (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 184 participants). Studies reported some secondary outcomes, but not consistently. Complications associated with central venous catheters occurred in RCTs involving parenteral nutrition. Adverse events in the enteral nutrition, immune-enhancing nutrition and standard oral nutrition supplements RCTs included nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and abdominal pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to determine if parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, immune-enhancing nutrition or standard oral nutrition supplements have any effect on the clinical outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence. There is some evidence that standard oral nutrition supplements may have no effect on complications. Sensitivity analysis showed standard oral nutrition supplements probably reduced infections in weight-losing or malnourished participants. Further high-quality multicentre research considering the ERAS programme is required and further research in low- and middle-income countries is needed.

Effect of preoperative oral liquid carbohydrate intake on blood glucose, fasting-thirst, and fatigue levels: a randomized controlled study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to analyze the effects of preoperative oral intake of liquid carbohydrate on postoperative blood glucose, fasting-thirst, and fatigue levels in patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery.

METHODS

This randomized controlled clinical trial enrolled 82 patients, who were scheduled to undergo arthroscopic surgery, and divided them into two groups: (1) those who consumed a carbohydrate-rich drink, and (2) those not consuming anything after midnight. Pre- and postoperative fasting-thirst (visual analog scale) and blood glucose levels were measured. Likewise, the Brief Fatigue Inventory was applied to patients 24 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

The mean blood glucose levels in the first postoperative hour were 90.90 ± 13.56 mg.dL^-1 and 107.00 ± 15.84 mg.dL^-1 in the intervention group and control group, respectively (p < 0.001). The postoperative mean thirst scores were 4.70 ± 1.59 and 6.36 ± 2.07 in the intervention group and control group, respectively (p < 0.001). Their corresponding postoperative mean fasting scores were 5.54 ± 1.76 and 5.86 ± 1.79 (p > 0.05) and the mean fatigue levels in the 24^th postoperative hour were 4.80 ± 2.13 and 5.48 ± 1.46, respectively (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral intake of liquid carbohydrate before spinal anesthesia was found to have positive effects on patients' postoperative blood glucose and thirst levels.

Effect of Preoperative Oral Carbohydrate Administration on Patients Undergoing Cesarean Section with Epidural Anesthesia: A Pilot Study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative oral carbohydrate administration on patients undergoing Cesarean section with epidural anesthesia.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled clinical study.

METHODS

A total of 75 patients undergoing Cesarean section (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status grade I-II) were randomized to preparation with a carbohydrate drink (CHO group), flavored water (placebo group), or to the fasting group. The CHO and placebo groups were double-blinded and given 300 mL of the drink 2 hours before surgery. Visual analog scores of the patient were assessed to evaluate thirst, hunger, and anxiety level, and the gastric antral cross-sectional areas were recorded by ultrasonography during the operative period. Insulin resistance was calculated on the basis of the blood glucose and insulin levels assessed before administration and after surgery.

FINDINGS

The CHO and placebo groups did not show an increase in gastric fluid volumes in terms of gastric antral cross-sectional area, and there were no adverse events. The visual analog scale scores at preoperative baseline were not different between groups . During the preoperative waiting period, preparation with CHO reduced not only thirst and anxiety more efficiently than water (placebo) but also hunger (P < .05), whereas water did not. No difference was observed in insulin resistance between groups before intake of the drink. Compared with the preoperative levels, insulin resistance showed a statistically significant increase in all groups (P < .05); however, the increase was significantly higher in the fasting and placebo groups than in the CHO group (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative administration of CHO decreases postoperative insulin resistance and enhances pregnant women's comfort, leading to a reduced sense of thirst, hunger, and anxiety during the preoperative period for Cesarean section.

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.

Advances in clinical nutrition in GI surgery

This review addresses recent relevant advances to clinical nutrition regarding gastrointestinal disease surgery. Medline Ovid, EMBASE and Central were searched systematically in April 2014. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials and observational studies evaluating nutritional support in gastrointestinal surgery published within 5 years. The review included 56 relevant studies. Themes were: nutrition screening and risk factors predict outcome; preoperative nutritional support; shortening fasting periods and including carbohydrate solutions; early nutrition after surgery; immune modulating nutrition; synbiotics, growth hormone, omega-3 and oral, enteral and parenteral nutrition in combination. Screening for nutritional risk is profound, with special focus on dietary intake in the past week. Age and severity of disease need to be included in the screening system. Patients at severe nutritional risk benefit from nutritional therapy before surgery. New standards are developing quickly and clinical guidelines on surgery should include updated knowledge within clinical nutrition.