The effect of early oral feeding after subtotal esophagectomy with immediate esophageal reconstruction on patients’ nutritional status: randomized single-center study
- 作者: Kovalerova N.1, Ruchkin D.1, Plotnikov G.1
-
隶属关系:
- A.V. Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery
- 期: 卷 2, 编号 2 (2021)
- 页面: 51-65
- 栏目: Original Study Articles
- URL: https://journals.rcsi.science/2658-4433/article/view/81628
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/clinutr81628
- ID: 81628
如何引用文章
详细
BACKGROUND: The efficiency of early oral feeding in the postoperative period is well known. Though doctors still prefer other types of nutritional support after esophagectomy with immediate gastric tube reconstruction in the esophagus surgery.
AIMS: To compare the efficacy, safety and nutritional status of patients after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction while beginning of oral and full parenteral nutrition in the early postoperative period.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We’ve conducted prospective single-center randomized study. Subtotal esophagectomy with immediate gastric tube reconstruction was performed to 60 patients. In the postoperative period we evaluated the results of treatment, the frequency and severity of complications, anthropometric and laboratory indicators of the nutritional status before the operation on the first, third and sixth postoperative days.
RESULTS: Patients without high risk of malnutrition were randomly divided in 2 groups: main group (n=30) starting early oral feeding on the first postoperative day and control group (n=30) that remained nil by mouth and got parenteral feeding within 4 postoperative days. The patients of early oral feeding group had statistically significant earlier gas discharge(2 vs 4 postoperative days, р=0.000042) and stool appearance (3 vs 5 postoperative days, р=0.000004). There was a tendency towards a decrease in the duration of postoperative hospitalization in early oral feeding group (8 vs 9 postoperative days, р=0.13). Early oral feeding did not affect on frequency (46.6% vs 53.3%, р=0.66) and character of postoperative complications. After evaluation of the parameters of nutritional status we found statistically significant decrease of prealbumin level on the third postoperative day in early oral feeding group (0.17 vs 0.2, р=0.03) of due to inability to compensate daily calorie needs in the first days after the operation. On the sixth postoperative day prealbumin became the same in both groups. There were no other significant differences between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Early oral feeding after esophagectomy with immediate gastric tube reconstruction is safe. Early oral feeding doesn’t increase the frequency of anastomotic insufficiency and other complications. The decrease of prealbumin on the third postoperative day was noted in early oral feeding group while evaluating nutritional status.
作者简介
Natalia Kovalerova
A.V. Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: kovalerova.nat@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6951-1816
SPIN 代码: 2525-9338
俄罗斯联邦, Moscow
Dmitry Ruchkin
A.V. Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery
Email: ruchkindmitry@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9068-3922
SPIN 代码: 2587-8568
MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.)
俄罗斯联邦, MoscowGeorgy Plotnikov
A.V. Vishnevsky National Medical Research Center of Surgery
Email: georgpp@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4291-3380
SPIN 代码: 7504-2864
MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.)
俄罗斯联邦, Moscow参考
- Saltanov AI, Selchuk VI, Snegovoy AV. Fundamentals of nutritional support in an oncological clinic (A guide for doctors). Moscow: MEDpress-inform; 2009. 240 p. (In Russ).
- Weimann A, Braga M, Carli F, et al. ESPEN guideline: clinical nutrition in surgery. Clin Nutr. 2017;36(3):623–650. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.02.013
- Low DE, Allum W, De Manzoni G, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in esophagectomy: enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) society recommendations. World J Surg. 2019;43(2):299–320. doi: 10.1007/s00268-018-4786-4
- Pasechnik IN. Nutritive support from the standpoint of the accelerated recovery program after surgical interventions. DoktorRu. 2016;12(1):27–31. (In Russ).
- Chen MJ, Wu IC, Chen YJ, et al. Nutrition therapy in esophageal cancer — Consensus statement of the Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan. Dis Esophagus. 2018;31(8). doi: 10.1093/dote/doy016
- Oyanagi H. Clinical significance and problems in parenteral nutritional care. (In Japanese). Nippon Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 1998;99(3):159–163.
- Peng J, Cai J, Niu ZX, Chen LQ. Early enteral nutrition compared with parenteral nutrition for esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy: a meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus. 2016;29(4): 333–341. doi: 10.1111/dote.12337
- Smeets BJ, Luyer MD. Nutritional interventions to improve recovery from postoperative ileus. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2018;21(5):394–398. doi: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000494
- Osland E, Yunus RM, Khan S, Memon MA. Early versus traditional postoperative feeding in patients undergoing resectional gastrointestinal surgery:a meta-analysis. J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2011;35(4):473–487. doi: 10.1177/0148607110385698
- De Vasconcellos Santos FA, Gonzaga Torres L, Alves Wainstein AJ, Drummond-Lage AP. Jejunostomy or nasojejunal tube after esophagectomy: a review of the literature. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11:5812–5818. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2018.12.62
- Choi AH, O’Leary MP, Merchant SJ, et al. Complications of feeding jejunostomy tubes in patients with gastroesophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(2):259–265. doi: 10.1007/s11605-016-3297-6
- Tao Z, Zhang Y, Zhu S, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing jejunostomy and nasogastric feeding in minimally invasive McKeown Esophagectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020;24(10): 2187–2196. doi: 10.1007/s11605-019-04390-y
- Pattamatta M, Fransen LF, Dolmans-Zwartjes AC, et al. Effect of direct oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy on costs and quality of life. J Med Econ. 2021;24(1):54–60. doi: 10.1080/13696998.2020.1859843
- Berkelmans GH, Fransen LF, Dolmans-Zwartjes AC, et al. Direct oral feeding following minimally invasive esophagectomy (NUTRIENT II trial): an international, multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2020;271(1):41–47. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003278
- Weijs TJ, Berkelmans GH, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, et al. Immediate postoperative oral nutrition following esophagectomy: a multicenter clinical trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102(4):1141–1148. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.04.067
- Giacopuzzi S, Weindelmayer J, Treppiedi E, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol in patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer: a single center experience. Dis Esophagus. 2017;30(4): 1–6. doi: 10.1093/dote/dow024
- Fransen L, Janssen T, Aarnoudse M, et al. Direct oral feeding after a minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-center prospective cohort study. Ann Surg. 2020. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004036
- Fedorov IG, Gavrilina NS, Sedova GA, et al. Trophological insufficiency in gastroenterological patients. Moscow; 2015. 53 p. (In Russ).
- Raiten DJ, Namasté S, Brabin B, et al. Executive summary ― biomarkers of nutrition for development: building a consensus. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011;94(2):633S–650S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.110.008227
- Cabrerizo S, Cuadras D, Gomez-Busto F, et al. Serum albumin and health in older people: review and meta analysis. Maturitas. 2015;81(1):17–27. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2015.02.009
- Conway TL, Cronan TA, Peterson KA. Circumference-estimated percent body fat vs. weight-height indices: relationships to physical fitness. Aviat Sp Environ Med. 1989;60(5):433–437.
- Zhang Z, Pereira SL, Luo M, Matheson EM. Evaluation of blood biomarkers associated with risk of malnutrition in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2017;9(8):829. doi: 10.3390/nu9080829
- Shenkin A. Serum prealbumin: is it a marker of nutritional status or of risk of malnutrition? Clin Chem. 2006;52(12):2177–2179. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2006.077412
- Zaichik ASh, Churilov LP. Pathochemistry. Endocrine and metabolic disorders. Saint Petersburg: ALBI; 2007. 768 p. (In Russ).
- Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992;111(5):518–526.
- Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, et al. International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):286–294. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098
- Yibulayin W, Abulizi S, Lv H, Sun W. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14(1):304. doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-1062-7
- Goense L, Meziani J, Ruurda JP, van Hillegersberg R. Impact of postoperative complications on outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. Br J Surg. 2019;106(1):111–119. doi: 10.1002/bjs.11000
- Booka E, Takeuchi H, Nishi T, et al. The impact of postoperative complications on survivals after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Med (United States). 2015;94(33):e1369. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001369
- Aiolfi A, Asti E, Riva CG, Bonavina L. Esophagectomy for stage IV achalasia: case series and literature review. Eur Surg Acta Chir Austriaca. 2018;50(2):58–64. doi: 10.1007/s10353-018-0514-4
- Van den Berg JW, Luketich JD, Cheong E. Oesophagectomy: the expanding role of minimally invasive surgery in oesophageal cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;36-37:75–80. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2018.11.001
- Markar SR, Karthikesalingam A, Thrumurthy S, et al. Systematic review and pooled analysis assessing the association between elderly age and outcome following surgical resection of esophageal malignancy. Dis Esophagus. 2013;26(3):250–262. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2012.01353.x