» Articles » PMID: 38463057

A Clinical Study on Gastric Cancer Patients Administered EN and PN Versus PN Alone in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery

Overview
Publisher Wolters Kluwer
Specialty Medical Education
Date 2024 Mar 11
PMID 38463057
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Objectives: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) recommends avoiding enteral nutrition (EN) due to undesirable sequelae such as pulmonary aspiration and infections. Not using of EN in nongastric resections under ERAS pathways is often successful. However, parenteral nutrition (PN) alone followed by early postoperative oral feeding in gastric cancer patients, recommended by the ERAS guidelines, has unclear benefit and is only adopted after gastric resection. This study aimed to compute the postoperative outcomes of EN and PN compared to those of the ERAS-recommended nutritional pathway. Our secondary objective was to compare postoperative complications between the two groups.

Materials And Methods: Of 173 gastrectomy patients, 116 patients were in the combined group (EN and PN), whereas 57 patients were in the PN alone group. Statistical analysis was performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0.0 software. The data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, the independent sample -test, or, in the case of several independent samples, by the Kruskal-Wallis test. Categorical data were analyzed by Pearson's χ test or Fisher's exact test.

Results: The observed indices included C-reactive protein (CRP), platelet (PLT), white blood cells (WBC), hemoglobin (Hb), albumin, and PRE-albumin. The secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS), cost, incidence of pulmonary infection, and total incidence of infection.

Conclusion: The combined mode of nutrition is feasible and is not associated with postoperative complications in gastric cancer patients under ERAS.

Citing Articles

Efficacy and Safety of a Combination of Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition Support in the Postoperative Period for Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Cai M, Yang B, Zheng Y, Ding L Balkan Med J. 2025; 42(1):14-26.

PMID: 39757453 PMC: 11725663. DOI: 10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2024.2024-10-65.

References
1.
Xiaoyong W, Xuzhao L, Deliang Y, Pengfei Y, Zhenning H, Bin B . Construction of a model predicting the risk of tube feeding intolerance after gastrectomy for gastric cancer based on 225 cases from a single Chinese center. Oncotarget. 2017; 8(59):99940-99949. PMC: 5725142. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.21966. View

2.
Probst P, Keller D, Steimer J, Gmur E, Haller A, Imoberdorf R . Early combined parenteral and enteral nutrition for pancreaticoduodenectomy - Retrospective cohort analysis. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2016; 6:68-73. PMC: 4761695. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2016.02.002. View

3.
Martos-Benitez F, Gutierrez-Noyola A, Soto-Garcia A, Gonzalez-Martinez I, Betancourt-Plaza I . Program of gastrointestinal rehabilitation and early postoperative enteral nutrition: a prospective study. Updates Surg. 2018; 70(1):105-112. DOI: 10.1007/s13304-018-0514-8. View

4.
Weindelmayer J, Mengardo V, Gasparini A, Sacco M, Torroni L, Carlini M . Enhanced Recovery After Surgery can Improve Patient Outcomes and Reduce Hospital Cost of Gastrectomy for Cancer in the West: A Propensity-Score-Based Analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021; 28(12):7087-7094. PMC: 8519899. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10079-x. View

5.
Kim S, McClave S, Martindale R, Miller K, Hurt R . Hypoalbuminemia and Clinical Outcomes: What is the Mechanism behind the Relationship?. Am Surg. 2017; 83(11):1220-1227. DOI: 10.1177/000313481708301123. View