Literature DB >> 15880316

Supportive nutrition on recovery of metabolism, nutritional state, health-related quality of life, and exercise capacity after major surgery: a randomized study.

Anders Hyltander1, Ingvar Bosaeus, Jan Svedlund, Bengt Liedman, Irene Hugosson, Ola Wallengren, Ulla Olsson, Erik Johnsson, Srdjan Kostic, Annika Henningsson, Ulla Körner, Lars Lundell, Kent Lundholm.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate whether specialized supportive enteral and parenteral feeding have superior effects compared to oral nutrition on recovery during long-term postoperative treatment of cancer patients with preoperative weight loss and reduced maximum exercise capacity.
METHODS: One hundred twenty-six patients referred for resection of the esophagus (n = 48), stomach (n = 28), or pancreas (n = 50) were considered to be included before operation. Included patients (n = 80) received supportive enteral or parenteral nutrition postoperatively at home corresponding to 1000 kcal/d until the patients did not wish to continue with artificial nutrition for any reason. Patients randomized to oral nutrition only served as control subjects. Caloric intake, body composition (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry), and respiratory gas exchanges at rest and during exercise were measured including health-related quality of life.
RESULTS: Survival and hospital stay did not differ among the groups, whereas overall complications were higher on artificial nutrition (P < .05). Changes in resting energy expenditure and biochemical tests did not differ during follow-up among the groups. Body weight and whole body fat declined similarly over time in all groups (P < .005), whereas lean body mass was unchanged during follow-up compared to preoperative values. Maximum exercise capacity and maximum oxygen consumption were normalized within 6 months postoperatively in all groups. There was no difference in recovery of food intake among the groups. Parenteral feeding was associated with the highest rate of nutrition-related complications, whereas enteral feeding reduced quality of life most extensively.
CONCLUSION: After major surgery, specialized supportive enteral and parenteral nutrition are not superior to oral nutrition only when guided by a dietitian.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15880316     DOI: 10.1016/s1542-3565(05)00151-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  12 in total

1.  Comparison of different nutritional assessments in detecting malnutrition among gastric cancer patients.

Authors:  Seung Wan Ryu; In Ho Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Impact of jejunostomy during esophagectomy for cancer on health related quality of life.

Authors:  Marco Scarpa; Francesco Cavallin; Giulia Noaro; Eleonora Pinto; Rita Alfieri; Matteo Cagol; Carlo Castoro
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 5.087

3.  The development and validation of a quality-of-life questionnaire for head and neck cancer patients with enteral feeding tubes: the QOL-EF.

Authors:  Christiaan Seimeon Michael Stevens; Betty Lemon; Gina A Lockwood; John N Waldron; Andrea Bezjak; Jolie Ringash
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Nutritional interventions for cancer-induced cachexia.

Authors:  Norleena P Gullett; Vera C Mazurak; Gautam Hebbar; Thomas R Ziegler
Journal:  Curr Probl Cancer       Date:  2011 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.187

5.  Nutrient intake and contribution of home enteral nutrition to meeting nutritional requirements after oesophagectomy and total gastrectomy.

Authors:  M L Baker; V Halliday; P Robinson; K Smith; D J Bowrey
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.016

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

Authors:  Ronald Chow; Eduardo Bruera; Jann Arends; Declan Walsh; Florian Strasser; Elisabeth Isenring; Egidio G Del Fabbro; Alex Molassiotis; Monica Krishnan; Leonard Chiu; Nicholas Chiu; Stephanie Chan; Tian Yi Tang; Henry Lam; Michael Lock; Carlo DeAngelis
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2019-12-07       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Early enteral nutrition within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal surgery versus later commencement for length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.

Authors:  Georgia Herbert; Rachel Perry; Henning Keinke Andersen; Charlotte Atkinson; Christopher Penfold; Stephen J Lewis; Andrew R Ness; Steven Thomas
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-07-22

Review 8.  A systematic review of the nutritional consequences of esophagectomy.

Authors:  Melanie Baker; Vanessa Halliday; Robert N Williams; David J Bowrey
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2015-09-12       Impact factor: 7.324

9.  Early enteral nutrition within 24 hours of lower gastrointestinal surgery versus later commencement for length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.

Authors:  Georgia Herbert; Rachel Perry; Henning Keinke Andersen; Charlotte Atkinson; Christopher Penfold; Stephen J Lewis; Andrew R Ness; Steven Thomas
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-10-24

10.  Six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  David J Bowrey; Melanie Baker; Vanessa Halliday; Anne L Thomas; Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob; Karen Smith
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-05-24       Impact factor: 2.279

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.