Enteral Nutrition Therapy: Historical Perspective, Utilization, and Complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy can provide vital nutrition support for patients with various medical conditions as long as it is indicated and supported by ethical reasoning. This review seeks to offer a detailed account of the history of EN development, highlighting key milestones and recent advances in the field. Additionally, it covers common complications associated with EN and their management.

RECENT FINDINGS

After years of research and development, we have reached newer generations of enteral feeding formulations, more options for enteral tubes and connectors, and a better understanding of EN therapy challenges. Given the availability of many different formulas, selecting a feeding formula with the best evidence for specific indications for enteral feeding is recommended. Initiation of enteral feeding with standard polymeric formula remains the standard of care. Transition to small-bore connectors remains suboptimal. Evidence-based practices should be followed to recognize and reduce possible enteral feeding complications early.

Application and effectiveness of an improved endoscopically guided nasojejunal tube placement technique in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study

Background

The endoscopic nasojejunal (NJ) placement plays a pivotal role in the nutritional support of critically ill patients. However, the conventional endoscopy-guided tube insertion method presents issues of excessive procedural duration. We have enhanced the traditional endoscopy-guided catheter placement method, enabling a faster and more convenient catheter insertion.

Methods

We improved the traditional endoscopically guided technique by incorporating an extra silk thread knot at the 25 cm mark on the jejunal segment of the NJ tube to assist endoscopists in accurate tube placement. We conducted the improved NJ tube placement on critically ill patients in need of enteral nutrition (EN). Laboratory data were retrospectively collected before and after the 7-day period of NJ tube placement and EN treatment to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the improved method.

Results

A total of 88 critically ill patients, with an average age of 59.6±15.5 years, and a male ratio of 86.4%, who underwent the improved NJ tube placement method were enrolled into analysis finally, achieving a 100% success rate of NJ tube insertion. The average time for tube insertion was 5.9±2.2 min, with a mean insertion depth of 108.8±12.5 cm. The EN tolerance score was 0.79±0.98. Following 7 days of EN therapy, the patients showed significant improvement in serum albumin levels compared to baseline (36.42 vs. 33.66 g/L, P<0.001).

Conclusions

The improved endoscopically guided NJ tube placement technique is a rapid and safe procedure with excellent patient tolerance. It significantly improves the nutritional status of critically ill patients and facilitates the administration of EN, which requires further validation through randomized controlled trials.

Enteral and parenteral nutrition in cancer patients, a comparison of complication rates: an updated systematic review and (cumulative) meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Weight loss in cancer patients is a worrisome constitutional change predicting disease progression and shortened survival time. A logical approach to counter some of the weight loss is to provide nutritional support, administered through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The aim of this paper was to update the original systematic review and meta-analysis previously published by Chow et al., while also assessing publication quality and effect of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the meta-conclusion over time.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out; screening was conducted for RCTs published in January 2015 up until December 2018. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no infection and no nutrition support complications. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving no major complications and no mortality. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3) by Biostat were used for meta-analyses of endpoints and assessment of publication quality.

RESULTS

An additional seven studies were identified since our prior publication, leading to 43 papers included in our review. The results echo those previously published; EN and PN are equivalent in all endpoints except for infection. Subgroup analyses of studies only containing adults indicate identical risks across all endpoints. Cumulative meta-analysis suggests that meta-conclusions have remained the same since the beginning of publication time for all endpoints except for the endpoint of infection, which changed from not favoring to favoring EN after studies published in 1997. There was low risk of bias, as determined by assessment tool and visual inspection of funnel plots.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the current European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines recommending enteral over parenteral nutrition, when oral nutrition is inadequate, in adult patients. Further studies comparing EN and PN for these critical endpoints appear unnecessary, given the lack of change in meta-conclusion and low publication bias over the past decades.

Evaluation of the need for routine feeding jejunostomy for enteral nutrition after esophagectomy

Background

Previous studies have shown that enteral nutrition (EN) helps reduce severe postoperative complications after esophagectomy. However, the incidence of jejunostomy-related complications is approximately 30%. We evaluated the operative outcomes in patients who did not receive EN via feeding jejunostomy after esophagectomy.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 76 consecutive patients with esophageal cancer who received radical esophagectomy. Operative outcomes were compared between 33 patients who received postoperative EN via feeding jejunostomy (group A; from May 2014 to September 2015) and 43 patients who did not receive EN via feeding jejunostomy (group B; from September 2015 to December 2017).

Results

The American Society of Anesthesiologists performance status score of the patients in group B was significantly higher than that of patients in group A (P=0.002). The postoperative morbidity rate was comparable between the two groups (group A, 30.3% vs. group B, 44.2%, P=0.217). No significant between-group differences were observed in the incidence of infectious complications, postoperative hospital stay, readmission within 30 days after discharge, or pneumonia after discharge within 6 months. The incidence of bowel obstruction was significantly higher in group A than in group B (group A, 9.1% vs. group B, 0%, P=0.044). Two patients in group B required nutritional support via total parenteral nutrition due to bilateral vocal cord palsy or pneumonia.

Conclusions

Jejunostomy-related bowel obstruction in the patients with feeding jejunostomy was significantly higher than that in the patients without jejunostomy. There was no increase in postoperative complications (including pneumonia) in the patients who did not receive EN via feeding jejunostomy. Our results suggest that routine feeding jejunostomy may not be necessary for all patients undergoing esophagectomy.