-
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jan 2016In cancer patients, weight loss is an ominous sign suggesting disease progression and shortened survival time. As a result, providing nutrition support for cancer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In cancer patients, weight loss is an ominous sign suggesting disease progression and shortened survival time. As a result, providing nutrition support for cancer patients has been proposed as a logical approach for improving clinical outcomes. Nutrition support can be given to patients through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The purpose of the review was to compare the outcomes of PN and EN in cancer patients.
METHODS
A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and OLDMEDLINE, Embase Classic and Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if over half of the patient population had cancer and reported on any of the following endpoints: the percentage of patients that experienced no infection, nutrition support complications, major complications or mortality. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using Review Manager Version 5.3 were calculated. Primary endpoints were stratified according to type of EN for subgroup analysis, grouping studies into either tube feeding (TF) or standard care (SC). Additionally, another subgroup analysis was conducted comparing studies with protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) patients and studies without PEM patients.
RESULTS
The literature search yielded 674 articles of which 36 were included for the meta-analysis. There were no difference in the endpoints between the two study interventions except that PN resulted in more infection when compared with EN (RR =1.09, 95% CI: 1.01-1.18; P=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Other than increased incidence of infection, PN has not resulted in prolonging the survival, increasing nutrition support complications, or major complications when compared with EN in cancer patients.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Infection Control; Neoplasms; Nutritional Support; Parenteral Nutrition; Protein-Energy Malnutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26841813
DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2224-5820.2016.01.01 -
PloS One 2023The prevalence of catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) is high and is a severe health problem associated with an increase in mortality and elevated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The prevalence of catheter-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) is high and is a severe health problem associated with an increase in mortality and elevated economic costs. There are discrepancies related to the risk factors of CLABSI since the results published are very heterogeneous and there is no synthesis in the description of all the predisposing factors.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and establish the risk factors predisposing to CLABSI reported in the literature.
METHOD
This is a systematic review of observational studies following the PRISMA recommendations. MEDLINE and CINAHL databases were searched for primary studies from 2007 to 2021. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO CRD42018083564.
RESULTS
A total of 654 studies were identified, 23 of which were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis included 17 studies and 9 risk factors were analyzed (total parenteral nutrition (TPN), chemotherapy, monolumen and bilumen catheters, days of catheterization, immunosuppression, kidney disease and diabetes mellitus) due to the homogeneity of their definitions and measurements. The risk factors found to increase the probability of developing CLABSI were TPN, multilumen devices, chemotherapy treatment, immunosuppression and the number of days of catheterization. On the other hand, monolumen devices presented a lower likelihood of triggering this infection.
Topics: Humans; Catheterization, Central Venous; Sepsis; Risk Factors; Catheter-Related Infections; Central Venous Catheters; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36952393
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0282290 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Jun 2021The refeeding syndrome (RFS) has been recognized as a potentially life-threatening metabolic complication of re-nutrition, but the definition widely varies and, its... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
The refeeding syndrome (RFS) has been recognized as a potentially life-threatening metabolic complication of re-nutrition, but the definition widely varies and, its incidence is unknown. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to estimate the incidence of RFS in adults by considering the definition used by the authors as well as the recent criteria proposed by the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) consensus. Furthermore, the incidence of refeeding hypophosphatemia (RH) was also assessed.
METHODS
Four databases were systematically searched until September 2020 for retrieving trials and observational studies. The incidences of RFS and RH were expressed as percentage and reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Thirty-five observational studies were included in the analysis. The risk of bias was serious in 16 studies and moderate in the remaining 19. The incidence of RFS varied from 0% to 62% across the studies. No substantial change in the originally reported incidence of RFS was found by applying the ASPEN criteria. Similarly, the incidence of RH ranged between 7% and 62%. In the subgroup analyses, inpatients from Intensive Care Units (ICUs) and those initially fed with >20 kcal/kg/day seemed to have a higher incidence of both RFS (pooled incidence = 44%; 95% CI 36%-52%) and RH (pooled incidence = 27%; 95% CI 21%-34%). However, due to the high heterogeneity of data, summary incidence measures are meaningless.
CONCLUSION
The incidence rate of both RFS and RH greatly varied according to the definition used and the population analyzed, being higher in ICU inpatients and in those with increased initial caloric supply. Therefore, a universally accepted definition for RFS, taking different clinical contexts and groups of patients into account, is still needed to better characterize the syndrome and its approach.
Topics: Consensus; Humans; Hypophosphatemia; Incidence; Observational Studies as Topic; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Refeeding Syndrome
PubMed: 34134001
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2021.04.023 -
Critical Care (London, England) Apr 2016Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no outcome differences between the two routes. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of the route of nutrition (EN versus PN) on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.
METHODS
An electronic search from 1980 to 2016 was performed identifying relevant RCTs. Individual trial data were abstracted and methodological quality of included trials scored independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was overall mortality and secondary outcomes included infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the treatment effect by dissimilar caloric intakes, year of publication and trial methodology. We performed a test of asymmetry to assess for the presence of publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 18 RCTs studying 3347 patients met inclusion criteria. Median methodological score was 7 (range, 2-12). No effect on overall mortality was found (1.04, 95 % CI 0.82, 1.33, P = 0.75, heterogeneity I(2) = 11 %). EN compared to PN was associated with a significant reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.48, 0.87, P = 0.004, I(2) = 47 %). This was more pronounced in the subgroup of RCTs where the PN group received significantly more calories (RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.37, 0.82, P = 0.003, I(2) = 0 %), while no effect was seen in trials where EN and PN groups had a similar caloric intake (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.80, 1.10, P = 0.44, I(2) = 0 %; test for subgroup differences, P = 0.003). Year of publication and methodological quality did not influence these findings; however, a publication bias may be present as the test of asymmetry was significant (P = 0.003). EN was associated with significant reduction in ICU LOS (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.80, 95 % CI -1.23, -0.37, P = 0.0003, I(2) = 0 %) while no significant differences in hospital LOS and mechanical ventilation were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
In critically ill patients, the use of EN as compared to PN has no effect on overall mortality but decreases infectious complications and ICU LOS. This may be explained by the benefit of reduced macronutrient intake rather than the enteral route itself.
Topics: Adult; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Nutritional Status; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27129307
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1298-1 -
The International Journal of Eating... Mar 2016Given the importance of weight restoration for recovery in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN), we examined approaches to refeeding in adolescents and adults across... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Given the importance of weight restoration for recovery in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN), we examined approaches to refeeding in adolescents and adults across treatment settings.
METHODS
Systematic review of PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Clinical Trials databases (1960-2015) using terms refeeding, weight restoration, hypophosphatemia, anorexia nervosa, anorexia, and anorexic.
RESULTS
Of 948 screened abstracts, 27 met these inclusion criteria: participants had AN; reproducible refeeding approach; weight gain, hypophosphatemia or cognitive/behavioral outcomes. Twenty-six studies (96%) were observational/prospective or retrospective and performed in hospital. Twelve studies published since 2010 examined approaches starting with higher calories than currently recommended (≥1400 kcal/d). The evidence supports 8 conclusions: 1) In mildly and moderately malnourished patients, lower calorie refeeding is too conservative; 2) Both meal-based approaches or combined nasogastric+meals can administer higher calories; 3) Higher calorie refeeding has not been associated with increased risk for the refeeding syndrome under close medical monitoring with electrolyte correction; 4) In severely malnourished inpatients, there is insufficient evidence to change the current standard of care; 5) Parenteral nutrition is not recommended; 6) Nutrient compositions within recommended ranges are appropriate; 7) More research is needed in non-hospital settings; 8) The long-term impact of different approaches is unknown;
DISCUSSION
Findings support higher calorie approaches to refeeding in mildly and moderately malnourished patients under close medical monitoring, however the safety, long-term outcomes, and feasibility outside of hospital have not been established. Further research is also needed on refeeding approaches in severely malnourished patients, methods of delivery, nutrient compositions and treatment settings.
Topics: Anorexia Nervosa; Female; Humans; Male; Parenteral Nutrition; Prospective Studies; Refeeding Syndrome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 26661289
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22482 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Critically ill people are at increased risk of malnutrition. Acute and chronic illness, trauma and inflammation induce stress-related catabolism, and drug-induced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Critically ill people are at increased risk of malnutrition. Acute and chronic illness, trauma and inflammation induce stress-related catabolism, and drug-induced adverse effects may reduce appetite or increase nausea and vomiting. In addition, patient management in the intensive care unit (ICU) may also interrupt feeding routines. Methods to deliver nutritional requirements include provision of enteral nutrition (EN), or parenteral nutrition (PN), or a combination of both (EN and PN). However, each method is problematic. This review aimed to determine the route of delivery that optimizes uptake of nutrition.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of enteral versus parenteral methods of nutrition, and the effects of enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral methods of nutrition, among critically ill adults, in terms of mortality, number of ICU-free days up to day 28, and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase on 3 October 2017. We searched clinical trials registries and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies comparing EN given to adults in the ICU versus PN or versus EN and PN. We included participants that were trauma, emergency, and postsurgical patients in the ICU.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 studies with 8816 participants; 23 studies were RCTs and two were quasi-randomized studies. All included participants were critically ill in the ICU with a wide range of diagnoses; mechanical ventilation status between study participants varied. We identified 11 studies awaiting classification for which we were unable to assess eligibility, and two ongoing studies.Seventeen studies compared EN versus PN, six compared EN versus EN and PN, two were multi-arm studies comparing EN versus PN versus EN and PN. Most studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately. Most studies reported no methods to blind personnel or outcome assessors to nutrition groups; one study used adequate methods to reduce risk of performance bias.Enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutritionWe found that one feeding route rather than the other (EN or PN) may make little or no difference to mortality in hospital (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.77; 361 participants; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.13; 3148 participants; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether one feeding route rather than the other reduces mortality within 90 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 2461 participants; 3 studies). One study reported mortality at one to four months and we did not combine this in the analysis; we reported this data as mortality within 180 days and it is uncertain whether EN or PN affects the number of deaths within 180 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.97; 46 participants).No studies reported number of ICU-free days up to day 28, and one study reported number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 and it is uncertain whether one feeding route rather than the other reduces the number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 because the certainty of the evidence is very low (mean difference, inverse variance, 0.00, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.97; 2388 participants).We combined data for adverse events reported by more than one study. It is uncertain whether EN or PN affects aspiration because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.03; 2437 participants; 2 studies), and we found that one feeding route rather than the other may make little or no difference to pneumonia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 415 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We found that EN may reduce sepsis (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 361 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain whether PN reduces vomiting because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.16; 2525 participants; 3 studies).Enteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition and parenteral nutritionWe found that one feeding regimen rather than another (EN or combined EN or PN) may make little or no difference to mortality in hospital (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; 5111 participants; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and at 90 days (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.18; 4760 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether combined EN and PN leads to fewer deaths at 30 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.54; 409 participants; 3 studies). It is uncertain whether one feeding regimen rather than another reduces mortality within 180 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.55; 120 participants; 1 study).No studies reported number of ICU-free days or ventilator-free days up to day 28. It is uncertain whether either feeding method reduces pneumonia because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.15; 205 participants; 2 studies). No studies reported aspiration, sepsis, or vomiting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to determine whether EN is better or worse than PN, or than combined EN and PN for mortality in hospital, at 90 days and at 180 days, and on the number of ventilator-free days and adverse events. We found fewer deaths at 30 days when studies gave combined EN and PN, and reduced sepsis for EN rather than PN. We found no studies that reported number of ICU-free days up to day 28. Certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is either low or very low. The 11 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
Topics: Adult; Cause of Death; Combined Modality Therapy; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Malnutrition; Parenteral Nutrition; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Vomiting
PubMed: 29883514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012276.pub2 -
Chest Feb 2022Current guidelines recommend empirical antifungal therapy in patients with sepsis with high risk of invasive Candida infection. However, many different risk factors have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Current guidelines recommend empirical antifungal therapy in patients with sepsis with high risk of invasive Candida infection. However, many different risk factors have been derived from multiple studies. These risk factors lack specificity, and broad application would render most ICU patients eligible for empirical antifungal therapy.
RESEARCH QUESTION
What risk factors for invasive Candida infection can be identified by a systematic review and meta-analysis?
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
We searched PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Biomed Central, and Cochrane and extracted the raw and adjusted OR for each risk factor associated with invasive Candida infection. We calculated pooled ORs for risk factors present in more than one study.
RESULTS
We included 34 studies in our meta-analysis resulting in the assessment of 29 possible risk factors. Risk factors for invasive Candida infection included demographic factors, comorbid conditions, and medical interventions. Although demographic factors do not play a role for the development of invasive Candida infection, comorbid conditions (eg, HIV, Candida colonization) and medical interventions have a significant impact. The risk factors associated with the highest risk for invasive Candida infection were broad-spectrum antibiotics (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 3.6-8.8), blood transfusion (OR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.5-16.3), Candida colonization (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.6-14.3), central venous catheter (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.7-8.1), and total parenteral nutrition (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 3.3-6.3). However, dependence between the various risk factors is probably high.
INTERPRETATION
Our systematic review and meta-analysis identified patient- and treatment-related factors that were associated with the risk for the development of invasive Candida infection in the ICU. Most of the factors identified were either related to medical interventions during intensive care or to comorbid conditions.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Blood Component Transfusion; Candidiasis, Invasive; Catheterization, Central Venous; Comorbidity; Critical Illness; Humans; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Risk Factors
PubMed: 34673022
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.08.081 -
Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences Sep 2022Inpatients have a high need for protein-energy intake because of increased physical stress metabolism due to illnesses. Protein-energy undernutrition in older patients... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Inpatients have a high need for protein-energy intake because of increased physical stress metabolism due to illnesses. Protein-energy undernutrition in older patients increases the risk of complications such as falls, pressure ulcers and even death. An overview of effective interventions addressing this complex issue of malnutrition in older people is missing.
AIMS
To give an overview of effective interventions to optimise nutrition in older people in hospitals and long-term care.
DESIGN
An umbrella review, according to the Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA statement, was conducted in April 2020.
METHODS
A systematic search of publications from 2010 until 2020 was conducted in CINAHL, PubMed and Cochrane Database. Included were studies reporting nutrition interventions that involved nurses or the interprofessional team in optimising older hospitalised people's nutrition. Excluded were studies investigating the effects of parenteral nutrition, certain food supplements or tube feeding and research from intensive, community or palliative care. Components of interventions were classified according to the intervention Nutrition management: Patients' assistance, patients' instruction, foodservice, environment for meals and nutrient-dense snacks.
FINDINGS
Included were 13 reviews from 19 countries of the continents Asia, Australia, Europe and North America from hospitals and long-term care settings. An interprofessional food promoting culture, including staff training as part of a multi-component measure, has shown to be a successful element in implementing activities of Nutrition Management.
CONCLUSION
Several studies synthesised that optimising nutrition in older people in hospitals and long-term care is achievable. Interventions were effective if-on a meta-level-staff training was addressed as part of a multi-component measure to reach an interprofessional food promoting culture.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Interventions to optimise older people's nutrition have to consider an interprofessional food promoting culture, including staff training about the importance of nutrition, patients' assistance and an appropriate environment for meals.
Topics: Aged; Energy Intake; Hospitals; Humans; Long-Term Care; Meals; Nutritional Status
PubMed: 34212419
DOI: 10.1111/scs.13015 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Apr 2023Accumulating scientific evidence supports the benefits of parenteral nutrition (PN) with fish oil (FO) containing intravenous lipid emulsions (ILEs) on clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Accumulating scientific evidence supports the benefits of parenteral nutrition (PN) with fish oil (FO) containing intravenous lipid emulsions (ILEs) on clinical outcomes. Yet, the question of the most effective ILE remains controversial. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank different types of ILEs in terms of their effects on infections, sepsis, ICU and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality in adult patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to May 2022, investigating ILEs as a part of part of PN covering at least 70% of total energy provision. Lipid emulsions were classified in four categories: FO-ILEs, olive oil (OO)-ILEs, medium-chain triglyceride (MCT)/soybean oil (SO)-ILEs, and pure SO-ILEs. Data were statistically combined through Bayesian NMA and the Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA) was calculated for all outcomes.
RESULTS
1651 publications were retrieved in the original search, 47 RCTs were included in the NMA. For FO-ILEs, very highly credible reductions in infection risk versus SO-ILEs [odds ratio (OR) = 0.43 90% credibility interval (CrI) (0.29-0.63)], MCT/soybean oil-ILEs [0.59 (0.43-0.82)], and OO-ILEs [0.56 (0.33-0.91)], and in sepsis risk versus SO-ILEs [0.22 (0.08-0.59)], as well as substantial reductions in hospital length of stay versus SO-ILEs [mean difference (MD) = -2.31 (-3.14 to -1.59) days] and MCT/SO-ILEs (-2.01 (-2.82 to -1.22 days) were shown. According to SUCRA score, FO-ILEs were ranked first for all five outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
In hospitalized patients, FO-ILEs provide significant clinical benefits over all other types of ILEs, ranking first for all outcomes investigated.
REGISTRATION NO
PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022328660.
Topics: Humans; Soybean Oil; Network Meta-Analysis; Parenteral Nutrition; Fat Emulsions, Intravenous; Fish Oils; Olive Oil; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Sepsis
PubMed: 36878111
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2023.02.008 -
Advances in Therapy Apr 2022Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are usually confronted with functional changes due to the malignancy itself or its treatment. These factors typically affect... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) are usually confronted with functional changes due to the malignancy itself or its treatment. These factors typically affect important structures involved in speech, breathing, chewing, swallowing, and saliva production. Consequently, the intake of food will be limited, which further contributes to loss of body weight and muscle mass, anorexia, malnutrition, fatigue, and anemia. This multifactorial condition can ultimately lead to cancer cachexia syndrome. This study aims to examine the treatment of cachexia in HNC patients.
METHODS
We systematically searched OvidMedline, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles examining the treatment of cachexia in HNC.
RESULTS
A total of nine studies were found, and these suggested interventions including nutritional, pharmacologic, therapeutic exercise, and multimodal approaches. The nutritional intervention includes essential components such as dietary counseling, oral nutritional supplements, and medical nutritional support. Individualized nutritional interventions include oral, enteral (feeding tubes i.e., percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy [PEG], nasogastric tube [NGT]) and parenteral nutrition. The pharmacologic interventions aim at increasing the appetite and weight of cachectic patients. Therapeutic exercise and increased physical activity can help to enhance the synthesis of muscle protein, reducing inflammation and the catabolic effects of cachexia syndrome.
CONCLUSION
Owing to the multifactorial nature of this syndrome, it is expected that the management approach should be multi-interventional. Early implementation of these interventions may help to improve survival and quality of health and life of cachectic HNC patients.
Topics: Cachexia; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Intubation, Gastrointestinal; Malnutrition
PubMed: 35224702
DOI: 10.1007/s12325-022-02074-9