Article

Does enteral nutrition affect clinical outcome? A systematic review of the randomized trials

University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
The American Journal of Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 9.21). 03/2007; 102(2):412-29; quiz 468. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.01024.x
Source: OAI

ABSTRACT Both parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) are widely advocated as adjunctive care in patients with various diseases. A systematic review of 82 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PN published in 2001 found little, if any, effect on mortality, morbidity, or duration of hospital stay; in some situations, PN increased infectious complication rates.
The objective was to assess the effect of EN or volitional nutrition support (VNS) in individual disease states from available RCTs.
We conducted a systematic review. RCTs comparing EN or VNS with untreated controls, or comparing EN with PN, were identified and separated according to the underlying disease state. Meta-analysis was performed when at least three RCTs provided data. The evidence from the RCTs was summarized into one of five grades. A or B, respectively, indicated the presence of strong or weak (low-quality RCTs) evidence supporting the use of the intervention. C indicated a lack of adequate evidence to make any decision about efficacy. D indicated that limited data could not support the intervention. E indicated either that strong data found no effect, or that either strong or weak data suggested that the intervention caused harm.
RCTs could include either hospitalized or nonhospitalized patients. The EN or VNS had to be provided as part of a treatment plan for an underlying disease process.
The RCT had to compare recipients of either EN or VNS with controls not receiving any type of artificial nutrition or had to compare recipients of EN with recipients of PN.
These were mortality, morbidity (disease specific), duration of hospitalization, cost, or interventional complications. SUMMARY OF GRADING: A: No indication was identified. B: EN or VNS in the perioperative patient or in patients with chronic liver disease; EN in critically ill patients or low birth weight infants (trophic feeding); VNS in malnourished geriatric patients. (The low-quality trials found a significant difference in survival favoring the VNS recipients in the malnourished geriatric patient trials; two high-quality trials found nonsignificant differences that favored VNS as well.) C: EN or VNS in liver transplantation, cystic fibrosis, renal failure, pediatric conditions other than low birth weight infants, well-nourished geriatric patients, nonstroke neurologic conditions, AIDS; EN in acute pancreatitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, nonmalnourished geriatric patients; VNS in inflammatory bowel disease, arthritis, cardiac disease, pregnancy, allergic patients, preoperative bowel preparation. D: EN or VNS in patients receiving nonsurgical cancer treatment or in patients with hip fractures; EN in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; VNS in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. E: EN in the first week in dysphagic, or VNS at any time in nondysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished; dysphagia persisting for weeks will presumably ultimately require EN.
There is strong evidence for not using EN in the first week in dysphagic, and not using VNS at all in nondysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished. There is reasonable evidence for using VNS in malnourished geriatric patients. The recommendations to consider EN/VNS in perioperative/liver/critically ill/low birth weight patients are limited by the low quality of the RCTs. No evidence could be identified to justify the use of EN/VNS in other disease states.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Anne C Milne, Jul 02, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
99 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is a strong and commonly held belief among nutrition clinicians that enteral nutrition is preferable to parenteral nutrition. We provide a narrative review of more recent studies and technical reviews comparing enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition. Despite significant weaknesses in the existing data, current literature continues to support the use of enteral nutrition in patients requiring nutrition support, over parenteral nutrition.
    Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology 03/2013; 6(2):157-67. DOI:10.1177/1756283X12467564
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dietary counselling and oral nutritional supplements (ONS) are recommended for managing malnutrition. A recent systematic review demonstrated (in separate analyses) that dietary counselling and dietary counselling with ONS improved energy intake, weight and some indices of body composition, although there was considerable heterogeneity. The present analysis aimed to examine the effects on mortality and nutritional indices of dietary counselling given with or without ONS and to explore the heterogeneity in the meta-analyses aiming to characterise the groups most likely to benefit from these interventions. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane methodology. Twenty-six studies were included in the analysis: 12 comparing dietary counselling with usual care and 14 comparing dietary counselling and ONS if required with usual care (2123 participants). Quality of studies varied. Dietary counselling given with or without ONS had no effect on mortality [relative risk (fixed) = 1.12; 95% confidence interval = 0.86-1.46] but was associated with significant but heterogeneous benefits to weight [mean difference (random) = 1.7 kg; 95% confidence interval = 0.86-2.55], energy intake and some aspects of body composition. Subgroup analyses taking into account clinical background, age, nutritional status, type and length of intervention failed to reveal any differences in mortality, weight change and energy intake between groups. There were insufficient data on functional outcomes to explore these findings. Dietary counselling given with or without ONS is effective at increasing nutritional intake and weight but adequately-powered studies in similar patient populations and standardised for factors that might account for variations in response are required.
    Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 06/2012; 25(5):411-26. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-277X.2012.01264.x · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Disease-related malnutrition is common, detrimentally affecting the patient and healthcare economy. Although use of high protein oral nutritional supplements (ONS) has been recommended to counteract the catabolic effects of disease and to facilitate recovery from illness, there is a lack of systematically obtained evidence to support these recommendations. This systematic review involving 36 randomised controlled trials (RCT) (n=3790) (mean age 74 years; 83% of trials in patients >65 years) and a series of meta-analyses of high protein ONS (>20% energy from protein) demonstrated a range of effects across settings and patient groups in favour of the high protein ONS group. These included reduced complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.68 (95%CI 0.55-0.83), p<0.001, 10 RCT, n=1830); reduced readmissions to hospital (OR 0.59 (95%CI 0.41-0.84), p=0.004, 2 RCT, n=546); improved grip strength (1.76 kg (95%CI 0.36-3.17), p<0.014, 4 RCT, n=219); increased intake of protein (p<0.001) and energy (p<0.001) with little reduction in normal food intake and improvements in weight (p<0.001). There was inadequate information to compare standard ONS (<20% energy from protein) with high protein ONS (>20% energy from protein). The systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that high protein supplements produce clinical benefits, with economic implications.
    Ageing research reviews 12/2011; 11(2):278-96. DOI:10.1016/j.arr.2011.12.008 · 7.63 Impact Factor