Early enteral nutrition compared with parenteral nutrition for esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis : Early EN versus PN after esophagectomy

Nutritional support is part of the standard of care for the critically ill adult patient. In the average patient in the intensive care unit who has no contraindications to enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN), the choice of route for nutritional support may be influenced by several factors. Because EN and PN are associated with risks and benefits, we systematically reviewed and critically appraised the literature to compare EN with PN the critically ill patient. We searched computerized bibliographic databases, personal files, and relevant reference lists to identify potentially eligible studies. Only randomized clinical trials that compared EN with PN in critically ill patients with respect to clinically important outcomes were included in this review. In an independent fashion, relevant data on the methodology and outcomes of primary studies were abstracted in duplicate. The studies were subsequently aggregated statistically. There were 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria and, hence, were included in our meta-analysis. The use of EN as opposed to PN was associated with a significant decrease in infectious complications (relative risk = 0.64, 95% confidence interval = 0.47 to 0.87, P = 0.004) but not with any difference in mortality rate (relative risk = 1.08, 95% confidence interval = 0.70 to 1.65, P = 0.7). There was no difference in the number of days on a ventilator or length of stay in the hospital between groups receiving EN or PN (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.07, 95% confidence interval = -0.2 to 0.33, P = 0.6). PN was associated with a higher incidence of hyperglycemia. Data that compared days on a ventilator and the development of diarrhea in patients who received EN versus PN were inconclusive. In the EN and PN groups, complications with enteral and parenteral access were seen. Four studies documented cost savings with EN as opposed to PN. The use of EN as opposed to PN results in an important decrease in the incidence of infectious complications in the critically ill and may be less costly. EN should be the first choice for nutritional support in the critically ill.

The evidence in support of Early Enteral Nutrition (EEN) after upper gastrointestinal surgery is inconclusive. The aim of this study was to determine if EEN improved clinical outcomes and shortened length of hospital stay. Open, prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial within a regional UK Cancer Network. One hundred and twenty-one patients with suspected operable upper gastrointestinal cancer (54 oesophageal, 38 gastric, 29 pancreatic) were studied. Patients were randomised to receive EEN (n = 64) or Control management postoperatively (nil by mouth and IV fluid, n = 57). Analysis was based on intention-to-treat and the primary outcome measure was length of hospital stay. Operative morbidity was less common after EEN (32.8%) than Control management (50.9%, p = 0.044), due to fewer wound infections (p = 0.017), chest infections (p = 0.036) and anastomotic leaks (p = 0.055). Median length of hospital stay was 16 days (IQ = 9) after EEN compared with 19 (IQ = 11) days after Control management (p = 0.023). EEN was associated with significantly shortened length of hospital stay and improved clinical outcomes. These findings reinforce the potential benefit of early oral nutrition in principle and as championed within enhanced recovery after surgery programmes, and such strategies deserve further research in the arena of upper GI surgery. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Although previous studies recommend the use of enteral nutrition (EN), the benefit of EN after elective gastrointestinal surgery has not been comprehensively demonstrated as through a meta-analysis. Our aim is to determine whether enteral nutrition is more beneficial than parenteral nutrition. A search was conducted on Medline, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library electronic databases, and bibliographic reviews. The trials were based on randomization, gastrointestinal surgery, and the reporting of at least one of the following end points: any complication, any infectious complication, mortality, wound infection and dehiscence, anastomotic leak, intraabdominal abscess, pneumonia, respiratory failure, urinary tract infection, renal failure, any adverse effect, and duration of hospital stay. Twenty-nine trials, which included 2,552 patients, met the criteria. EN was beneficial in the reduction of any complication (relative risk (RR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.74-0.99; P = 0.04), any infectious complication (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86; P = 0.001), anastomotic leak (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-0.95; P = 0.03), intraabdominal abscess (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95; P = 0.03), and duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.25-0.38; P = 0.02). There were no clear benefits in any of the other complications. The present findings would lead us to recommend the use of EN rather than PN when possible and indicated.