-
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 -
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 -
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 -
World Journal of Gastroenterology Jul 2016Surgery used to be the only therapy for gastric cancer, and since its ability to cure gastric cancer was the focus of attention, less attention was paid to... (Review)
Review
Surgery used to be the only therapy for gastric cancer, and since its ability to cure gastric cancer was the focus of attention, less attention was paid to function-preserving surgery in gastric cancer, though it was studied for gastroduodenal ulcer. Maki et al developed pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for gastric ulcer in 1967. At the same time, the definition of early gastric cancer (EGC) was being considered, histopathological investigations of EGC were carried out, and the validity of modified surgery was sustained. After the development of H2-blockers, the number of operations for gastroduodenal ulcers decreased, and the number of EGC patients increased simultaneously. As a result, the indications for pylorus-preserving gastrectomy for EGC in the middle third of the stomach extended, and various alterations were added. Since then, many kinds of function-preserving gastrectomies have been performed and studied in other fields of gastric cancer, and proximal gastrectomy, jejunal pouch interposition, segmental gastrectomy, and local resection have been performed. On the other hand, from the overall perspective, it can be said that endoscopic resection, which was launched at almost the same time, is the ultimate function-preserving surgery under the current circumstances. The current function-preserving gastrectomies that are often performed and studied are pylorus-preserving gastrectomy and proximal gastrectomy. The reasons for this are that these procedures that can be performed with systemic lymph node dissection, and they include three important elements: (1) reduction of the extent of gastrectomy; (2) preservation of the pylorus; and (3) preservation of the vagal nerve. In addition, these operations are more likely to be performed with a laparoscopic approach as minimally invasive surgery. Of the above-mentioned three elements, reduction of the extent of gastrectomy is the most important in our view. Therefore, we should try to reduce the extent of gastrectomy if curability of the gastric cancer can still be achieved. However, if we preserve a wider residual stomach in function-preserving gastrectomy, we should pay attention to the development of metachronous gastric cancer.
Topics: Adenocarcinoma; Anastomosis, Surgical; Gastrectomy; Gastric Stump; Humans; Japan; Lymph Node Excision; Neoplasm Staging; Organ Sparing Treatments; Pylorus; Stomach Neoplasms; Vagus Nerve
PubMed: 27468183
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i26.5888 -
Case Reports in Gastroenterology 2022A 62-year-old man was referred to our hospital because of abdominal pain. Computed tomography revealed an approximately 7-cm-diameter tumor in the left abdomen with...
A 62-year-old man was referred to our hospital because of abdominal pain. Computed tomography revealed an approximately 7-cm-diameter tumor in the left abdomen with metastatic lymph nodes, an approximately 1-cm-diameter round tumor in contact with the subclavian artery in the apical lobe of the right lung, and mediastinal lymph node enlargement in contact with the superior vena cava. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy revealed no abnormalities. Double-balloon endoscopy revealed a whole circumferential ulcer in the jejunum approximately 20 cm from the ligament of Treitz. Biopsy analysis of an ulcer specimen revealed a poorly differentiated carcinoma. Immunohistochemical staining of the specimen showed that it was positive for thyroid transcription factor 1 and cytokeratin 7 and negative for cytokeratin 20, GATA-binding protein 3, caudal-type homeobox protein 2, and paired box 8. Positron emission tomography revealed positive findings in the small-intestinal tumor, nearby mesenteric lymph nodes, lymph nodes around the abdominal aorta, lung tumor, and mediastinal lymph node in the apical lobe of the right lung. Accordingly, the patient was diagnosed as having a lung carcinoma with small-intestinal metastasis (T1b, N3, M1c; cStage IVB). Pathological examination helped distinguish the primary small-intestinal tumor from the metastatic small-intestinal tumor and detect the tumor origin.
PubMed: 35528768
DOI: 10.1159/000523663 -
Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) Dec 2022Eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EoGE) is a rare digestive disorder characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the stomach and intestines. In the diagnosis of EoE, it is... (Review)
Review
Eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EoGE) is a rare digestive disorder characterized by eosinophilic infiltration of the stomach and intestines. In the diagnosis of EoE, it is extremely important to recognize distinctive endoscopic findings and accurately detect increased eosinophilia in gastrointestinal tissues. However, endoscopic findings of EoGE in the small intestine remain poorly understood. Therefore, we conducted a literature review of 16 eligible papers. Redness or erythema was the most common endoscopic finding in the small bowel, followed by villous atrophy, erosion, ulceration, and edema. In some cases, stenosis due to circumferential ulceration was observed, which led to retention of the capsule during small bowel capsule endoscopy. Although many aspects of small bowel endoscopic findings in EoGE remain elusive, the findings presented in this review are expected to contribute to the further development of EoGE practice.
PubMed: 36611405
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13010113