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.

Impact of Perioperative Immunonutrition on Postoperative Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Head and Neck or Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether perioperative immunonutrition is effective in adult patients with or without malnutrition undergoing elective surgery for head and neck (HAN) or gastrointestinal (GI) cancers.

BACKGROUND

It is important to avoid postoperative complications in patients with cancer as they can compromise clinical outcomes. There is no consensus on the efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in patients with or without malnutrition undergoing HAN or GI cancer surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Selection, and Emcare from 1981 to 2022 using search terms related to immunonutrition and HAN or GI cancer. We included randomized controlled trials. Intervention was defined as immunonutritional therapy including arginine, n-3 omega fatty acids, or glutamine during the perioperative period. The control was defined as standard nutritional therapy. The primary outcomes were total postoperative and infectious complications, defined as events with a Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II that occurred within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 4825 patients from 48 included studies, 19 had upper GI cancer, 9 had lower, and 8 had mixed cancer, whereas 12 had HAN cancers. Immunonutrition reduced the total postoperative complications (relative risk ratio: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66-0.93; certainty of evidence: high) and infectious complications (relative risk ratio: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.61-0.82; certainty of evidence: high) compared with standard nutritional therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Nutritional intervention with perioperative immunonutrition in patients with HAN and GI cancers significantly reduced total postoperative complications and infectious complications.

Impact of Perioperative Immunonutrition on Postoperative Outcomes in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

There is no consensus on the efficacy of perioperative immunonutrition in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery. We clarified the impact of perioperative immunonutrition on postoperative outcomes in patients with upper GI cancers. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science Core Selection, and Emcare from 1981-2022 using search terms related to immunonutrition and upper GI cancer. We included randomized controlled trials. Intervention was defined as immunonutritional therapy, including arginine, n-3 omega fatty acids, or glutamine during the perioperative period. The control was defined as standard nutritional therapy. The primary outcomes were infectious complications, defined as events with a Clavien-Dindo classification grade ≥ II that occurred within 30 days after surgery. After screening, 23 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and in the quantitative synthesis. The meta-analysis showed that immunonutrition reduced infectious complications (relative risk ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.57-0.92; certainty of evidence: Moderate) compared with standard nutritional therapy. In conclusion, nutritional intervention with perioperative immunonutrition in patients with upper GI cancers significantly reduced infectious complications. The effect of immunonutrition for upper GI cancers in reducing the risk of infectious complications was about 30%.

The Impact of Peri-operative Enteral Immunonutrition on Post-operative Complications in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Immunonutrition (IMN) in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery remains under-utilised and contentious. Despite previous meta-analysis reporting benefit, most recent randomised control trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate this and have recommended against its routine use. A contemporary meta-analysis may contribute to the recommendations for immunonutrition use and help select which patients may benefit. The objective of this study was to review IMN and its impact on post-operative outcomes in GI cancer surgery, exploring its role in both malnourished and non-malnourished populations, the optimal dose to use, cancer type of patients using IMN and the timing of IMN relative to the peri-operative period.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The EMBASE and Medline databases were searched from 2000 to 2022 for RCTs evaluating IMN in adults undergoing GI cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven studies were included (22 pre-operative IMN studies, 11 peri-operative IMN trials and 9 post-operative IMN trials; 4 trials had multiple IMN protocols) that reported on 3793 patients. The main outcome of post-operative infectious complications was reduced with IMN [odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.72]. This association was significant in subgroup analysis only with pre-operative and peri-operative administration and in trials including upper GI cancers, colorectal cancer and 'mixed GI' cancer populations, and significance was independent of nutritional status. IMN in pooled analysis reduced surgical site infection (SSI) (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.81), anastomotic leak (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.93) and length of stay (LOS) by 1.94 days (95% CI - 3 to - 0.87).

CONCLUSION

Immunonutrition was associated with reduced post-operative complications. Peri-operative administration may be the preferred strategy in reducing infectious complications, anastomotic leak, SSI and LOS.

Effect of Enteral Immunonutrition in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Gastrointestinal Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

The efficacy of enteral immunonutrition (EIN) in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery remains debatable. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of EIN administration in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer.

Methods

From January 2000 to January 2022, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were thoroughly searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with EIN versus standard diet or no supplement in patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Overall complications and infectious complications were the primary outcomes. The secondary results were non-infectious complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, and enteral nutrition-related complications.

Results

Thirty-five studies reporting 3,692 patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer (including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer, periampullary cancer, or pancreatic cancer) were included. Compared with the control group, EIN group had a significantly decreased incidence of overall complications (RR = 0.79, p < 0.001). Infectious complications in patients who received EIN were considerably lower than in the control group (RR = 0.66, p < 0.001). Compared to the control group, the incidence of surgical site infection, abdominal abscess, anastomotic leakage, bacteremia, duration of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), and duration of antibiotic therapy was significantly lower in the specific infectious complications treated with EIN. Still, there was no significant difference between the two groups with other infectious complications. Moreover, a substantial shortening in the length of hospital stay was shown in EIN group compared with the control group. Still, no significant effect of EIN was demonstrated in non-infectious complicatios and mortality. The enteral nutrition-related complications had no significant difference between two groups.

Conclusions

EIN is safe and effective in reducing overall complications, infectious complications, and hospital stay in patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer surgery (including gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, esophageal cancer, periampullary cancer, or pancreatic cancer).

Effects of β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation on muscle mass, function, and other outcomes in patients with cancer: a systematic review

Low muscle mass is prevalent among patients with cancer and a predictor of adverse clinical outcomes. To counteract muscle loss, β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (HMB) supplementation has been proposed as a potential therapy for older adults and various diseases states. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effects and safety of HMB supplementation in relation to muscle mass and function and other clinical outcomes in patients with cancer. A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, ProQuest, and grey literature for reports published from inception to December 2021 was conducted. Included studies provided supplements containing any dose of HMB to adult patients with active cancer. A synthesis without meta-analysis was conducted using a vote-counting approach based solely on the direction of the effect (i.e. regardless of statistical significance). Risk of bias was assessed for each outcome domain, and evidence from higher-quality studies (i.e. those with either low or moderate risk of bias) was examined. Safety was evaluated using both lower-quality and higher-quality studies. Fifteen studies were included, in which six were randomized controlled trials in patients with various cancer types and treatments. Studies prescribed HMB combined with amino acids (73.3%), HMB in oral nutritional supplements (20.0%), or both supplement types (6.7%); Ca-HMB doses of 3.0 g/day were provided in 80.0% of the studies. Four studies had high risk of bias across all outcome domains. Considering the higher-quality studies, evidence of a beneficial effect of HMB supplementation was found in four of four studies for muscle mass, two of two for muscle function, three of three for hospitalization, and five of seven for survival. In contrast, no beneficial effects of HMB on quality of life or body weight was found in two of four and three of five studies, respectively. A limited number of higher-quality studies evaluating the impact of HMB on cancer therapy-related toxicity, inflammation, and tumour response were observed. No serious adverse effects directly related to the nutrition intervention were reported. Although limited, current evidence suggests that HMB supplementation has a beneficial effect on muscle mass and function in patients with cancer. Well-designed trials are needed to further explore the clinical benefit of HMB supplementation in this patient population.

Preoperative Nutritional Optimization of the Oncology Patient: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Malnutrition is common among patients with cancer and is a known risk factor for poor postoperative outcomes; however, preoperative nutritional optimization guidelines are lacking in this high-risk population. The objective of this study was to review the evidence regarding preoperative nutritional optimization of patients undergoing general surgical operations for the treatment of cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was performed across the Ovid (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library (Wiley), Embase (Elsevier), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and Web of Science (Clarivate) databases. Eligible studies included randomized clinical trials, observational studies, reviews, and meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2020. Included studies evaluated clinical outcomes after preoperative nutritional interventions among adult patients undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Data extraction was performed using a template developed and tested by the study team.

RESULTS

A total of 5,505 publications were identified, of which 69 studies were included for data synthesis after screening and full text review. These studies evaluated preoperative nutritional counseling, protein-calorie supplementation, immunonutrition supplementation, and probiotic or symbiotic supplementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative nutritional counseling and immunonutrition supplementation should be considered for patients undergoing surgical treatment of gastrointestinal malignancy. For malnourished patients, protein-calorie supplementation should be considered, and for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery, probiotics or symbiotic supplementation should be considered.

[de la evidencia y algoritmo adaptado Immunonutrition in fast-track surgical patients - Evidence review and adapted algorithm]

Introduction

Surgical stress predisposes patients to have immune dysfunction and an increased risk of infection. Malnourished surgical patients have higher postoperative morbidity and mortality rates, higher readmission rates, and higher hospital costs. The use of an immunomodulatory formula is associated in the ESPEN guidelines with a reduction in wound healing problems, suture failure, and infectious and global complications. Several authors have suggested that, since most clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of immunonutrition have been carried out in a traditional perioperative setting, it would be interesting to investigate its efficacy in a more controlled setting, such as in the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery after Surgery) protocol. The objective of this work was: a) to define the role that immunonutrition should play in ERAS protocols based on the best scientific evidence available; b) to analyze the difficulties that continue to exist in real-life clinical practice to screen the nutritional risk of patients; c) to make a proposal of algorithms adapted to the characteristics of our environment regarding the screening, assessment, and nutritional treatment of surgical patients in fast-track surgery.

Immunonutrition vs Standard Nutrition for Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Part 1)

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of immunonutrition vs standard nutrition in cancer patients treated with surgery. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost, and Web of Science were searched. Sixty-one randomized controlled trials were included. Immunonutrition was associated with a significantly reduced risk of postoperative infectious complications (risk ratio [RR] 0.71 [95% CI, 0.64-0.79]), including a reduced risk of wound infection (RR 0.72 [95% CI, 0.60-0.87]), respiratory tract infection (RR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.59-0.84]), and urinary tract infection (RR 0.69 [95% CI, 0.51-0.94]) as well as a decreased risk of anastomotic leakage (RR 0.70 [95% CI, 0.53-0.91]) and a reduced hospital stay (MD -2.12 days [95% CI -2.72 to -1.52]). No differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to sepsis or all-cause mortality. Subgroup analyses revealed that receiving arginine + nucleotides + ω-3 fatty acids and receiving enteral immunonutrition reduced the rates of wound infection and respiratory tract infection. The application of immunonutrition at 25-30 kcal/kg/d for 5-7 days reduced the rate of respiratory tract infection. Perioperative immunonutrition reduced the rate of wound infection. For malnourished patients, immunonutrition shortened the hospitalization time. Therefore, immunonutrition reduces postoperative infection complications and shortens hospital stays but does not reduce all-cause mortality. Patients who are malnourished before surgery who receive arginine + nucleotides + ω-3 fatty acids (25-30 kcal/kg/d) via the gastrointestinal tract during the perioperative period (5-7 days) may show better clinical efficacy.

Postoperative complication rate and survival of patients with gastric cancer undergoing immunonutrition: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of preoperative immunonutrition on the rate of postoperative complication and survival of patients with gastric cancer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort was formed after data collection of patients hospitalized with gastric cancer. Postoperative complications classified according to the Clavien-Dindo classification system, length of hospital stay, readmissions, and rates of survival at 6 mo, 1 y, and 5 y were analyzed. A χ² or Fisher's exact test, Student or Mann-Whitney t test, and Kaplan-Meier and Cox regressions were used in the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were included in the study, with 56 patients assigned to the immunonutrition group and 108 to the conventional group. There were no significant differences in postoperative complications between the immunonutrition and conventional groups (51.8% versus 58.3%; P = 0.423). The most frequent complications were fistula and surgical wound infection. Length of hospital stay did not differ between the groups (median of 7.0 d: P = 0.615) and the presence of readmissions did not differ either (12.5% versus 15.7%; P = 0.648). In the multivariate Cox regression, in a pooled model for group, age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, staging, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and type of surgery, there was a significant difference in survival rates at 6 mo (P = 0.011), 1 y (P = 0.006), and 5 y (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative immunonutrition in patients with gastric cancer did not reduce postoperative complications or length of hospital stay. More studies are needed to confirm the benefit of immunonutriton supplementation for overall survival when associated with other protective factors.

ESPEN expert group recommendations for action against cancer-related malnutrition

Patients with cancer are at particularly high risk for malnutrition because both the disease and its treatments threaten their nutritional status. Yet cancer-related nutritional risk is sometimes overlooked or under-treated by clinicians, patients, and their families. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) recently published evidence-based guidelines for nutritional care in patients with cancer. In further support of these guidelines, an ESPEN oncology expert group met for a Cancer and Nutrition Workshop in Berlin on October 24 and 25, 2016. The group examined the causes and consequences of cancer-related malnutrition, reviewed treatment approaches currently available, and built the rationale and impetus for clinicians involved with care of patients with cancer to take actions that facilitate nutrition support in practice. The content of this position paper is based on presentations and discussions at the Berlin meeting. The expert group emphasized 3 key steps to update nutritional care for people with cancer: (1) screen all patients with cancer for nutritional risk early in the course of their care, regardless of body mass index and weight history; (2) expand nutrition-related assessment practices to include measures of anorexia, body composition, inflammatory biomarkers, resting energy expenditure, and physical function; (3) use multimodal nutritional interventions with individualized plans, including care focused on increasing nutritional intake, lessening inflammation and hypermetabolic stress, and increasing physical activity.