A prospective, randomized trial of early enteral feeding after resection of upper gastrointestinal malignancy. Improvement of nutritional measures during preoperative parenteral nutrition in patients selected by the prognostic nutritional index: a randomized controlled trial. Perioperative nutritional support: a randomised clinical trial. Randomized clinical trial of the effects of preoperative and postoperative oral nutritional supplements on clinical course and cost of care. Preoperative parenteral feeding in patients with gastrointestinal carcinoma. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the use of enteral nutritional supplements postoperatively in malnourished surgical patients. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition: effects on gastrointestinal function and metabolism. Oral dietary supplements in pre- and postoperative surgical patients: a prospective and randomized clinical trial. [Total enteral nutrition vs. total parenteral nutrition in patients with severe acute pancreatitis].
The purpose of the study was to determine whether early postoperative enteral feeding with an immune-enhancing formula (IEF) decreases morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) cancer.
                Early enteral feeding with an IEF has been associated with improved outcome in trauma and critical care patients. Evaluable data documenting reduced complications after major upper GI surgery for malignancy with early enteral feeding are limited.
                Between March 1994 and August 1996, 195 patients with a preoperative diagnosis of esophageal (n = 23), gastric (n = 75), peripancreatic (n = 86), or bile duct (n = 11) cancer underwent resection and were randomized to IEF via jejunostomy tube or control (CNTL). Tube feedings were supplemented with arginine, RNA, and omega-3 fatty acids, begun on postoperative 1, and advanced to a goal of 25 kcal/kg per day. The CNTL involved intravenous crystalloid solutions. Statistical analysis was by t test, chi square, or logistic regression.
                Patient demographics, nutritional status, and operative factors were similar between the groups. Caloric intake was 61% and 22% of goal for the IEF and CNTL groups, respectively. The IEF group received significantly more protein, carbohydrate, lipids and immune-enhancing nutrients than did the CNTL group. There were no significant differences in the number of minor, major, or infectious wound complications between the groups. There was one bowel necrosis associated with IEF requiring reoperation. Hospital mortality was 2.5% and median length of hospital stay was 11 days, which was not different between the groups.
                Early enteral feeding with an IEF was not beneficial and should not be used in a routine fashion after surgery for upper GI malignancies. Patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery who had a prognostic nutritional index (PNI) score of greater than 30% were randomized to receive a preoperative course of 10 days of intravenous nutrition or to undergo surgery at the next convenient operation list. Two groups of 17 patients were well matched for age, sex, and nutritional status. Although they underwent diverse operations, the extent of these was similar: 12 +/- 3 days of parenteral nutrition resulted in weight gain, 3.2 +/- 2.3 kg p less than 0.01; increased triceps skinfold, 0.6 +/- 1.2 mm p less than 0.05; improved immunological state, p less than 0.02; and improved PNI, 5.5 +/- 10.1% p less than 0.05. The changes in serum albumin and transferrin were not significant. There were only three major complications with one death in the treatment group but this was not significantly different from the control group which had six major complications and three deaths. This study suggests that patients with demonstrable nutritional depletion who require major gastrointestinal surgery will benefit from a preoperative course of parenteral nutrition, but to conclusively prove this a large and probably multicentre study will be required. Ever since methods of artificial nutritional support became available, attempts have been made using this form of treatment to reduce mortality and morbidity in surgical patients. Many trials have addressed this question, but very few have given a meaningful answer because of conceptual and methodological flaws. We therefore undertook a prospective randomised trial investigating the effects of at least 10 days pre-operative total parenteral nutrition (TPN) (n = 51) or total enteral nutrition (TEN) (n = 50) providing 150% basal energy expenditure (BEE) non-protein energy, to reduce major postoperative complications and mortality in a homogeneous patient group with signs of depletion. 50 patients served as a depleted control group (D) and 49 patients served as a non-depleted reference group (ND) and were operated upon without delay. Depleted control patients suffered significantly more septic complications than did patients in the non-depleted reference group (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference, however, in septic complications between either of the nutritional support groups and the non-depleted control group. In high risk patients, with weight loss >10% of body weight and over 500 ml blood loss during operation, a significant decrease in major complications was observed (p < 0.05) as a result of nutritional support. We conclude that pre-operative nutritional support, in patients with severe depletion, results in a reduction in major complications to a degree that justifies its routine use in this selected group of patients. Postoperative oral nutritional supplementation has been shown to be of clinical benefit. This study examined the clinical effects and cost of administration of oral supplements both before and after surgery.
                This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in three centres. Patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal tract surgery were randomized to one of four groups: group CC received no nutritional supplements, group SS took supplements both before and after surgery, group CS received postoperative supplements only, and group SC were given supplements only before surgery. Preoperative supplements were given from the time it was decided to operate to 1 day before surgery. Postoperative supplements were started when the patient was able to take free fluids and continued for 4 weeks after discharge from hospital. Data collected included weight change, complications, length of stay, nutritional intake, anthropometrics, quality of life and detailed costings covering all aspects of care.
                Some 179 patients were randomized, of whom 27 were withdrawn and 152 analysed (CC 44, SS 32, CS 35, SC 41). Dietary intake was similar in all four groups throughout the study. Mean energy intake from preoperative supplements was 536 and 542 kcal/day in the SS and SC groups respectively; that 2 weeks after discharge from hospital was 274 and 361 kcal/day in the SS and CS groups respectively. There was significantly less postoperative weight loss in the SS group than in the CC and CS groups (P < 0.050), and significantly fewer minor complications in the SS and CS groups than the CC group (P < 0.050). There were no differences in the rate of major complications, anthropometrics and quality of life. Mean overall costs were greatest in the CC group, although differences between groups were not significant.
                Perioperative oral nutritional supplementation started before hospital admission for lower gastrointestinal tract surgery significantly diminished the degree of weight loss and incidence of minor complications, and was cost-effective.
                Copyright 2004 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. In a comparative clinical trial to examine the influence of 10 days of preoperative parenteral nutrition (PPN) on the postoperative complication rate for gastrointestinal carcinoma 59 patients (controls) received the regular hospital diet and 66 received PPN. The two groups were similar in nutritional status and in distribution of site and stage of tumour and type of operation. The rates of postoperative wound infection, pneumonia, major complications, and mortality were generally lower in the PPN group, but the differences were significant only for major complications and mortality. The clinical results can be explained by the improvement in various indices of humoral and cellular immunocompetence and the protein status in the PPN group and their deterioration in the control group during the preoperative course. Patients who undergo surgery are at risk of malnutrition due to periods of starvation, the stress of surgery, and subsequent increase in metabolic rate. There are limited data on nutritional outcome of surgical patients.
                To investigate changes in nutritional status and the influence of oral supplements on nutritional status, morbidity, and quality of life in postoperative surgical patients.
                Entry was determined by the presence of malnutrition, as defined by a body mass index (BMI) < or =20 kg/m(2), anthropometric measurements < or =15th percentile on admission, or initiation of oral diet postoperatively and/or a weight loss of 5% or more during the operative period. We studied 101 patients: 52 were randomised to the treatment group (TG) and prescribed a 1.5 kcal/ml nutritional supplement; 49 patients were randomised to the control group (CG) and continued with routine nutritional management. Nutritional status was assessed by weight, anthropometry, and grip strength, with measurements taken at two weekly intervals for 10 weeks. Complications, namely wound infection, chest infection, and antibiotic use were documented. Quality of life (QOL) was assessed using the UK SF-36 questionnaire.
                Patients in the control group lost a maximum mean (SD) of 5.96 (4.21) kg in weight over a period of eight weeks while patients in group TG lost less weight overall (maximum mean (SD) 3.40 (0.89) kg (p<0.001) occurring at four weeks and progressively regained weight from week 4). Anthropometry, grip strength, and QOL were similarly significantly different between groups (p<0.001). Fewer patients in the treatment group (7/52) required antibiotic prescriptions compared with the control group (15/49).
                Nutritional status declined for two months after discharge. Postoperative nutritional supplementation improved nutritional status, QOL, and morbidity in these patients. The effects of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) versus enteral nutrition (TEN) were studied in 34 patients following major neurosurgery. Measurements were made of resting energy expenditure (REE), urea production rate (UPR), visceral proteins, parameters of liver and pancreas function, as well as gastrointestinal absorption. To predict nutritional status, nutritional index (NI) was calculated. UPR revealed no significant differences between the groups. After 12 days of TEN, however, synthesis of visceral proteins increased significantly. In addition, NI improved after TEN (p < 0.05), whereas it remained unchanged after TPN. Thrombocyte and lymphocyte counts rose predominately during enteral nutrition. Only in the TEN group was REE increased by 18% and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) enhanced from Day 6 on. Exogenous insulin demand was enhanced in the parenterally fed group, and bilirubin (p < 0.05), amylase (p < 0.05), and lipase (p < 0.01) rose significantly, as did gamma-glutamyl-transferase (p < 0.0005) and alkaline phosphatase (p < 0.0005). After 12 d of TPN, vitamin A absorption was significantly attenuated, indicating reduced fat absorption compared to TEN. Carbohydrate absorption did not show significant changes between the groups. Only during TPN did mean values of xylose absorption remain below the normal range. Therefore, enteral nutrition following neurosurgical procedures is associated with an accelerated normalization of nutritional status and an improved substrate tolerance. TEN opposes early postoperative absorption disturbances of the small intestine. It has been suggested that the routine provision of oral dietary supplements (ODS) in postoperative surgical patients is of benefit in terms of morbidity and length of hospital stay. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of both pre- and postoperative ODS in patients undergoing an elective laparotomy. Patients requiring elective major gastrointestinal surgery were prospectively randomized into one of four groups: Group I received ODS in addition to normal diet both pre- and postoperatively, Group II were given ODS in the preoperative period only, Group III received ODS only in the postoperative period, and Group IV did not receive any supplements. Assessments of nutritional status, voluntary food intake, weight loss, serum albumin, morbidity and mortality, anxiety and depression, and postoperative activity levels were performed, and comparisons made between the groups. One hundred patients were included in the study. The mean daily energy intake from preoperative ODS was 507 +/- 140 kcal, significantly more than the 252 +/- 195 kcal in the postoperative period (P < 0.001). The postoperative voluntary food intake in patients receiving ODS was not significantly different from that in patients receiving normal diet alone (1090 versus 1268 kcal, 46.2 versus 49.1 g protein, P > 0. 05). All groups demonstrated an overall weight loss, with no significant differences between the groups, and there was no demonstrable effect on clinical outcome. At 6 mo postoperatively there were no differences between the study groups in terms of levels of activity. These results suggest that the routine use of perioperative ODS in well-nourished patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery confers no clinical or functional benefit. To compare the efficacy of early total enteral nutrition (TEN) vs. total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).
                A total of 22 consecutive patients with SAP were randomized to receive TPN (group I) or TEN (group II). SAP was defined applying APACHE II score, C-reactive protein (CRP) measurements and/or Balthazar CT scan score. Acute inflammatory response (CRP, TNF-a, IL-6), visceral proteins (pre-albumin, albumin), complications (systemic inflammatory response syndrome, multiorgan failure, infections), surgical interventions, length of hospital stay and mortality were evaluated.
                No significant differences were found between the two groups in the APACHE II score, in CRP, TNF-a and IL-6 concentrations or in pre-albumin and albumin levels over the first 10 days. Seven patients in group I and 4 in group II suffered severe complications. Three patients in group I required surgical intervention. Length of hospital stay was alike in the two groups. Two patients from group I died in the course of the hospitalization.
                SAP patients with TEN feeding showed a tendency towards a better outcome than patients receiving TPN.
There have been significant benefits demonstrated with pre-operative administration of IE nutrition in some high quality trials. However, bias was identified which may limit the generalizability of these results to all GI surgical candidates and the data needs to be placed in context with other recent innovations in surgical management (eg-ERAS). Some unwanted effects have also been reported with components of IE nutrition in critical care patients and it is unknown whether there would be detrimental effects by administering IE nutrition to patients who could require critical care support after their surgery. The studies evaluating PN demonstrated that the provision of PN to predominantly malnourished surgical candidates reduced post-operative complications; however, these data may not be applicable to current clinical practice, not least because they have involved a high degree of 'hyperalimentation'. Trials evaluating enteral or oral nutrition were inconclusive and further studies are required to select GI surgical patients for these nutritional interventions.