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

Background: 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. Objective: To assess the effect of EN or volitional nutrition support (VNS) in individual disease states from available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Design: We conducted a systematic review. RCTs comparing EN or VNS to untreated controls, or comparing EN to PN, were identified and separated according to the underlying disease state. Meta-analysis was performed when at least 3 RCTs provided data. The evidence from the RCTs was summarized into one of five grades. A or B 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. Patients and settings: RCTs could include either hospitalized or non-hospitalized patients. The EN or VNS had to be provided as part of a treatment plan for an underlying disease process. Interventions: The RCT had to compare recipients of either EN or VNS to controls not receiving any type of artificial nutrition or had to compare recipients of EN with recipients of PN. Outcome measures: 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 non-significant 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, non-stroke neurologic conditions, AIDS; EN in acute pancreatitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, non-malnourished geriatric patients; VNS in inflammatory bowel disease, arthritis, cardiac disease, pregnancy, allergic patients, preoperative bowel preparation D – EN or VNS in patients receiving non-surgical 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 non-dysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished; dysphagia persisting for weeks will presumably ultimately require EN. Conclusions: There is strong evidence for not using EN in the first week in dysphagic, and not using VNS at all in non-dysphagic, 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

To the Editor

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68733/2/10.1177_088453369801300210.pd

American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Guidelines for the Selection and Care of Central Venous Access Devices for Adult Home Parenteral Nutrition Administration

This document represents the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) clinical guidelines to describe best practices in the selection and care of central venous access devices (CVADs) for the infusion of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) admixtures in adult patients. The guidelines targeted adults >18 years of age in which the intervention or exposure had to include HPN that was administered via a CVAD. Case studies, non‐English studies, or studies of CVAD no longer available in the United States were excluded. In total, 564 abstract citations, 350 from Medline and 214 from PubMed/non‐MEDLINE databases, were scanned for relevance. Of the 564 citations, 13 studies addressed at least 1 of the 6 guideline‐related questions, and none of the studies were prospective and randomized. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to adjust the evidence grade based on assessment of the quality of study design and execution. Recommendations for the CVAD type, composition, or number of lumens to minimize infectious or mechanical complications are based on a limited number of studies and expert opinion of the authors, all very experienced in home infusion therapy. No studies were found that compared best solutions for routine flushing of lumens (eg, heparin versus saline) or for maintaining catheters in situ while treating CVAD mechanical or infectious complications. It is clear that studies to answer these questions are very limited, and further research is needed. These clinical guidelines were approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147811/1/jpen1455_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147811/2/jpen1455.pd

第964回千葉医学会例会・第31回麻酔科例会

BACKGROUND:Disease-associated malnutrition has been identified as a prevalent condition, particularly for the elderly, which has often been overlooked in the U.S. healthcare system. The state-level burden of community-based disease-associated malnutrition is unknown and there have been limited efforts by state policy makers to identify, quantify, and address malnutrition. The objective of this study was to examine and quantify the state-level economic burden of disease-associated malnutrition. METHODS:Direct medical costs of disease-associated malnutrition were calculated for 8 diseases: Stroke, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Coronary Heart Failure, Breast Cancer, Dementia, Musculoskeletal Disorders, Depression, and Colorectal Cancer. National disease and malnutrition prevalence rates were estimated for subgroups defined by age, race, and sex using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the National Health Interview Survey. State prevalence of disease-associated malnutrition was estimated by combining national prevalence estimates with states' demographic data from the U.S. Census. Direct medical cost for each state was estimated as the increased expenditures incurred as a result of malnutrition. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:Direct medical costs attributable to disease-associated malnutrition vary among states from an annual cost of $36 per capita in Utah to$65 per capita in Washington, D.C. Nationally the annual cost of disease-associated malnutrition is over $15.5 billion. The elderly bear a disproportionate share of this cost on both the state and national level. CONCLUSIONS:Additional action is needed to reduce the economic impact of disease-associated malnutrition, particularly at the state level. Nutrition may be a cost-effective way to help address high health care costs

Comparative Effectiveness Trial of an Obesity Prevention Intervention in EFNEP and SNAP-ED: Primary Outcomes

There is a need to disseminate evidence-based childhood obesity prevention interventions on a broader scale to reduce obesity-related disparities among underserved children. The purpose of this study was to test the comparative effectiveness of an evidence-based obesity prevention intervention, Hip-Hop to Health (HH), delivered through Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program-Education (SNAP-Ed) versus the standard curriculum delivered by the programs (Standard Nutrition Education (NE)). A nonequivalent control group design was delivered to compare the effectiveness of HH to NE on weight gain prevention and health behavior outcomes at EFNEP and SNAP-Ed sites. One hundred and fifty-three caregiver–child dyads (n = 103 in the HH group; n = 50 in the NE group) participated in the study. HH is an evidence-based dietary and physical activity intervention for low-income preschool children. The NE curriculum provided lessons for children that are consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010. Data were collected on demographics, anthropometrics, and behavioral variables for parent–child dyads at baseline and postintervention. Mixed model methods with random effects for site and participant were utilized. No differences in child or caregiver diet, physical activity, or screen time by group were found. No between-group differences in child BMI z-score were found; however, caregivers in the HH group lost significantly more weight than those in the NE group. Results from this trial can inform future dissemination efforts of evidenced-based programs for underserved families

Clinical Rounds With Nutrition Support Services

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68406/2/10.1177_011542659400900273.pd

Systemic and tumor level iron regulation in men with colorectal cancer: a case control study

BACKGROUND: Increased cellular iron exposure is associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Hepcidin, a liver peptide hormone, acts as the primary regulator of systemic iron status by blocking iron release from enterocytes into plasma. Concentrations are decreased during low iron status and increased during inflammation. The role of hepcidin and the factors influencing its regulation in CRC remains largely unknown. This study explored systemic and tumor level iron regulation in men with CRC. METHODS: The participants were 20 CRC cases and 20 healthy control subjects. Colonic tissue (adenocarcinoma [cases] healthy mucosa [controls]) was subjected to quantitative PCR (hepcidin, iron transporters and IL-6) and Perls’ iron staining. Serum was analyzed using ELISA for hepcidin, iron status (sTfR) and inflammatory markers (CRP, IL-6, TNF-α). Anthropometrics, dietary iron intake and medical history were obtained. RESULTS: Cases and controls were similar in demographics, medication use and dietary iron intake. Systemically, cases compared to controls had lower iron status (sTfR: 21.6 vs 11.8 nmol/L, p < 0.05) and higher marker of inflammation (CRP: 8.3 vs 3.4 μg/mL, p < 0.05). Serum hepcidin was mildly decreased in cases compared to controls; however, it was within the normal range for both groups. Within colonic tissue, 30% of cases (6/20) presented iron accumulation compared to 5% of controls (1/20) (χ(2) = 5.0; p < 0.05) and higher marker of inflammation (IL-6: 9.4-fold higher compared to controls, p < 0.05). Presence of adenocarcinoma iron accumulation was associated with higher serum hepcidin (iron accumulation group 80.8 vs iron absence group 22.0 ng/mL, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: While CRC subjects had serum hepcidin concentrations in the normal range, it was higher given their degree of iron restriction. Inappropriately elevated serum hepcidin may reduce duodenal iron absorption and further increase colonic adenocarcinoma iron exposure. Future clinical studies need to assess the appropriateness of dietary iron intake or iron supplementation in patients with CRC