-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2021The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The balance of benefits and harms associated with enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia is not clear. An increasing number of guidelines highlight the lack of evidenced benefit and potential risks of enteral tube feeding. In some areas of the world, the use of enteral tube feeding is decreasing, and in other areas it is increasing.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of enteral tube feeding for people with severe dementia who develop problems with eating and swallowing or who have reduced food and fluid intake.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's register, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases and two trials registers on 14 April 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled non-randomised studies. Our population of interest was adults of any age with a diagnosis of primary degenerative dementia of any cause, with severe cognitive and functional impairment, and poor nutritional intake. Eligible studies evaluated the effectiveness and complications of enteral tube feeding via a nasogastric or gastrostomy tube, or via jejunal post-pyloric feeding, in comparison with standard care or enhanced standard care, such as an intervention to promote oral intake. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors screened citations and two review authors assessed full texts of potentially eligible studies against inclusion criteria. One review author extracted data, which were then checked independently by a second review author. We used the 'Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions' (ROBINS-I) tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Risk of confounding was assessed against a pre-agreed list of key potential confounding variables. Our primary outcomes were survival time, quality of life, and pressure ulcers. Results were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we presented them narratively. We presented results separately for studies of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding, nasogastric tube feeding and studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods. We used GRADE methods to assess the overall certainty of the evidence related to each outcome for each study.
MAIN RESULTS
We found no eligible RCTs. We included fourteen controlled, non-randomised studies. All the included studies compared outcomes between groups of people who had been assigned to enteral tube feeding or oral feeding by prior decision of a healthcare professional. Some studies controlled for a range of confounding factors, but there were high or very high risks of bias due to confounding in all studies, and high or critical risks of selection bias in some studies. Four studies with 36,816 participants assessed the effect of PEG feeding on survival time. None found any evidence of effects on survival time (low-certainty evidence). Three of four studies using mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding methods in 310 participants (227 enteral tube feeding, 83 no enteral tube feeding) found them to be associated with longer survival time. The fourth study (1386 participants: 135 enteral tube feeding, 1251 no enteral tube feeding) found no evidence of an effect. The certainty of this body of evidence is very low. One study of PEG feeding (4421 participants: 1585 PEG, 2836 no enteral tube feeding) found PEG feeding increased the risk of pressure ulcers (moderate-certainty evidence). Two of three studies reported an increase in the number of pressure ulcers in those receiving mixed or unspecified enteral tube feeding (234 participants: 88 enteral tube feeding, 146 no enteral tube feeding). The third study found no effect (very-low certainty evidence). Two studies of nasogastric tube feeding did not report data on survival time or pressure ulcers. None of the included studies assessed quality of life. Only one study, using mixed methods of enteral tube feeding, reported on pain and comfort, finding no difference between groups. In the same study, a higher proportion of carers reported very heavy burden in the enteral tube feeding group compared to no enteral tube feeding. Two studies assessed the effect of nasogastric tube feeding on mortality (236 participants: 144 nasogastric group, 92 no enteral tube feeding). One study of 67 participants (14 nasogastric, 53 no enteral tube feeding) found nasogastric feeding was associated with increased mortality risk. The second study found no difference in mortality between groups. The certainty of this evidence is very low. Results on mortality for those using PEG or mixed methods of enteral tube feeding were mixed and the certainty of evidence was very low. There was some evidence from two studies for enteral tube feeding improving nutritional parameters, but this was very low-certainty evidence. Five studies reported a variety of harm-related outcomes with inconsistent results. The balance of evidence suggested increased risk of pneumonia with enteral tube feeding. None of the included studies assessed behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence that tube feeding improves survival; improves quality of life; reduces pain; reduces mortality; decreases behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia; leads to better nourishment; improves family or carer outcomes such as depression, anxiety, carer burden, or satisfaction with care; and no indication of harm. We found some evidence that there is a clinically significant risk of pressure ulcers from enteral tube feeding. Future research should focus on better reporting and matching of control and intervention groups, and clearly defined interventions, measuring all the outcomes referred to here.
Topics: Adult; Caregivers; Dementia; Enteral Nutrition; Gastrostomy; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Malnutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34387363
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013503.pub2 -
Expert Review of Gastroenterology &... 2016Refractory celiac disease (RCD) affects patients who have failed to heal after 6-12 months of a strict gluten-free diet (GFD) and when other causes of symptoms... (Review)
Review
Refractory celiac disease (RCD) affects patients who have failed to heal after 6-12 months of a strict gluten-free diet (GFD) and when other causes of symptoms (including malignancy) have been ruled out. It may also occur in patients who previously had responded to a long-term GFD. RCD may be categorized as RCD1 (normal immunophenotype) and RCD2 (aberrant immunophenotype). RCD1 usually responds to a continued GFD, nutritional support, and therapeutic agents such as corticosteroids. In contrast, clinical response in RCD2 is incomplete and prognosis is often poor. RCD (particularly RCD2) is associated with serious complications, such as ulcerative jejunitis and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL). Strict clinical and laboratory criteria should be used to diagnose RCD and specialized tests for aberrancy and clonality should be interpreted in the context of their sensitivity and specificity. Adequate nutritional support and anti-inflammatory treatment may even allow patients with RCD2 to attain a clinical remission.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Biopsy; Celiac Disease; Combined Modality Therapy; Diagnosis, Differential; Diet, Gluten-Free; Humans; Immunophenotyping; Nutrition Assessment; Nutritional Support; Phenotype; Predictive Value of Tests; Remission Induction; Time Factors; Treatment Failure
PubMed: 26603931
DOI: 10.1586/17474124.2016.1124759 -
Cureus Apr 2023Marginal ulcers are a late complication of gastric bypass surgery. A marginal ulcer is a term for ulcers that develop at the margins of a gastrojejunostomy, primarily...
Marginal ulcers are a late complication of gastric bypass surgery. A marginal ulcer is a term for ulcers that develop at the margins of a gastrojejunostomy, primarily on the jejunal side. A perforated ulcer involves the entire thickness of an organ, creating an opening on both surfaces. We will present an intriguing case of a 59-year-old Caucasian female who arrived at the emergency department with diffused chest and abdominal pain that began in her left shoulder and went down to the right lower quadrant area. The patient was in visible pain with restlessness, and her abdomen was moderately distended. The computed tomography (CT) showed possible perforation in the gastric bypass surgery area, but the results were inconclusive. The patient had laparoscopic cholecystectomy ten days prior, and the pain began right after surgery. The patient underwent an open abdominal exploratory surgery, with the closure of the perforated marginal ulcer. The fact that the patient had undergone another surgery and had pain immediately afterward also obscured the diagnosis. This case shows the rare presentation of the patientäs diverse signs and symptoms and inconclusive reports that led to the open abdominal exploratory surgery that finally confirmed the diagnosis. This case highlights the importance of a thorough past medical history, including surgical history. The past surgical history led the team to zone in on the gastric bypass area, leading to an accurate differential diagnosis.
PubMed: 37252481
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.38127 -
Current Gastroenterology Reports Mar 2020To review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and prognosis of refractory celiac disease, with a specific emphasis on recent literature. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
To review the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, management, and prognosis of refractory celiac disease, with a specific emphasis on recent literature.
RECENT FINDINGS
While the pathophysiology of type I refractory celiac disease remains unclear, there have been advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of type II refractory celiac disease. This has included recognition of the significant role of interleukin-15 and somatic mutations in JAK1 or STAT3 in the proliferation of aberrant T cells. This in turn has led to potential novel therapies targeting these factors, one of which has reached the clinical trial stage. The morbidity and mortality associated with type II refractory celiac disease remain significant; however, recent advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology of this condition have led to potential therapeutic options that should be investigated.
Topics: Celiac Disease; Humans
PubMed: 32185560
DOI: 10.1007/s11894-020-0756-8 -
Rozhledy V Chirurgii : Mesicnik... Feb 2016Pancreato-duodenectomy (PD) is the procedure of choice for management of resectable periampullary and pancreatic cancers and some patients with chronic pancreatitis. PD... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Pancreato-duodenectomy (PD) is the procedure of choice for management of resectable periampullary and pancreatic cancers and some patients with chronic pancreatitis. PD is one of the most major GI/ HPB surgical procedures performed involving resection of multiple organs and reconstruction with multiple anastomoses. While mortality of PD has been brought down to less than 5% morbidity still remains high.Patients undergoing PD are usually elderly with comorbidities - general complications of a major operation e.g. wound, chest, cardiac and venous thrombo-embolism, are common.The major intra-operative morbidity of PD is bleeding which can be from multiple sites viz. gall bladder bed, choledochal veins, gastro-colic trunk, pancreato-duodenal veins, jejunal veins, uncinate veins and cut surface of pancreas. An aberrant right hepatic artery (from the superior mesenteric artery) can be injured while dissecting the common bile duct.Pancreatic leak is defined as presence of amylase rich (>3x serum amylase) fluid in drain beyond 3 days. It is graded as A (no clinical impact), B (persists, infected) or C (systemic sepsis, reoperation). Investigation of choice is computed tomography; a localized collection can be drained percutaneously. Major leak requires reexploration at which lavage and drainage should be performed; no attempt should be made to repair or redo the anastomosis. Soft pancreas and undilated duct are the two most important risk factors for pancreatic anastomotic leak; role of octreotide to prevent the leak is debatable. Preoperative biliary drainage in the form of endoscopic stenting may reduce bleeding complications by controlling coagulopathy but increases the risk of infective complications.Postoperative bleed can be early or delayed and intra-luminal or intra-abdominal. Early intra-abdominal bleed is surgical - either a slipped ligature e.g. of the gastro-duodenal artery or one of the veins or from the pancreato-duodenal bed; reexploration should be done to control it if it is severe. Early intra-luminal bleed is from one of the anastomoses - commonest being the pancreatic. UGIE rules out bleed from the gastro/duodenal anastomosis (which if present, can be controlled endoscopically). Control of pancreatic stump bleed requires reoperation - taking down anterior layer of the anastomosis or a jejunotomy. Delayed intra-abdominal bleed is from a pseudo-aneurysm of an artery, usually gastro-duodenal caused by erosion by an abscess secondary to a leak; treatment of choice is angio-embolization. Delayed intra-luminal bleed is because of stress ulcers caused by systemic sepsis usually secondary to a leak and intra-abdominal sepsis.Other common complications include delayed gastric emptying and acute pancreatitis.Reoperations after PD are frequent - commonest cause is bleed, followed by leak; mortality of reexploration is high. Long term complications include anastomotic (PJ/ HJ) stricture, endocrine and exocrine insufficiency and inability to regain weight and poor quality of life.
KEY WORDS
pancreato-duodenectomy complications.
Topics: Amylases; Anastomosis, Surgical; Anastomotic Leak; Chylous Ascites; Diarrhea; Drainage; Embolization, Therapeutic; Gastric Bypass; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Mortality; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Pancreatitis, Chronic; Postoperative Hemorrhage; Quality of Life; Reoperation; Risk Factors; Time Factors
PubMed: 27008166
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Intensive Care 2019Enteral nutrition (EN) can maintain the structure and function of the gastrointestinal mucosa better than parenteral nutrition. In critically ill patients, EN must be... (Review)
Review
Enteral nutrition (EN) can maintain the structure and function of the gastrointestinal mucosa better than parenteral nutrition. In critically ill patients, EN must be discontinued or interrupted, if gastrointestinal complications, particularly vomiting and bowel movement disorders, do not resolve with appropriate management. To avoid such gastrointestinal complications, EN should be started as soon as possible with a small amount of EN first and gradually increased. EN itself may also promote intestinal peristalsis. The measures to decrease the risk of reflux and aspiration include elevation the head of the bed (30° to 45°), switch to continuous administration, administration of prokinetic drugs or narcotic antagonists to promote gastrointestinal motility, and switch to jejunal access (postpyloric route). Moreover, the control of bowel movement is also important for intensive care and management. In particular, prolonged diarrhea can cause deficiency in nutrient absorption, malnutrition, and increase in mortality. In addition, diarrhea may cause a decrease the circulating blood volume, metabolic acidosis, electrolyte abnormalities, and contamination of surgical wounds and pressure ulcers. If diarrhea occurs in critically ill patients on EN management, it is important to determine whether diarrhea is EN-related or not. After ruling out the other causes of diarrhea, the measures to prevent EN-related diarrhea include switch to continuous infusion, switch to gastric feeding, adjustment of agents that improve gastrointestinal peristalsis or laxative, administration of antidiarrheal drugs, changing the type of EN formula, and semisolidification of EN formula. One of the best ways to success for EN management is to continue as long as possible without interruption and discontinuation of EN easily by appropriate measures, even if gastrointestinal complications occur.
PubMed: 31086671
DOI: 10.1186/s40560-019-0378-0