• Br. J. Nutr. · Dec 2014

    Review Meta Analysis

    Nasogastric nutrition is efficacious in severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Deirdre M Nally, Enda G Kelly, Mary Clarke, and Paul Ridgway.
    • Department of Surgery,Limerick University Hospitals,Limerick,Republic of Ireland.
    • Br. J. Nutr. 2014 Dec 14;112(11):1769-78.

    AbstractIn patients with severe acute pancreatitis (AP), enteral nutrition is delivered by nasojejunal (NJ) tube to minimise pancreatic stimulation. Nasogastric (NG) feeding represents an alternative route. The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of NG feeding. Secondary objectives were to compare the NG and NJ routes and assess the side effects of the former. The primary endpoint was exclusive NG feeding with delivery of 75% of nutritional targets. Additional outcomes included change to total parenteral nutrition (TPN), increased pain or disease severity, vomiting, diarrhoea, delivery rate reduction and tube displacement. Among the retrieved studies, six were found to be eligible for the qualitative review and four for the meta-analysis. NG nutrition was received by 147 patients; exclusive NG feeding was achieved in 90% (133/147). Of the 147 patients, 129 (87%) received 75% of the target energy. In studies where all subjects received exclusive NG nutrition, 82% (seventy-four of the ninety patients) received >75% of the intended energy. Compared with NJ nutrition, there was no significant difference in the delivery of 75% of nutritional targets (pooled risk ratio (RR) 1.02; 95% CI 0.75, 1.38.) or no increased risk of change to TPN (pooled RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.45, 2.48), diarrhoea (pooled RR 1.28; 95% CI 0.62, 2.66), exacerbation of pain (pooled RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.47, 2.61) or tube displacement (pooled RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.11, 1.73). Vomiting and diarrhoea were the most common side effects of NG feeding (13.3 and 12.9%, respectively). With respect to the delivery of nutrition, 11.2% of the patients required delivery rate reduction and 3.4% dislodged the tube. Other side effects included elevated levels of aspirates (9.1%), abdominal distension (1.5%), pain exacerbation (7.5%) and increased disease severity (1.6%). In conclusion, NG feeding is efficacious in 90% of patients. Further research is required to optimise the delivery of NG nutrition and examine 'gut-rousing' approaches to nutrition in patients with severe AP.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…