Search

Access to nutritional care is frequently limited or denied to patients with disease-related malnutrition (DRM), to those with the inability to adequately feed themselves or to maintain their optimal healthy nutritional status which goes against the fundamental human right to food and health care. That is why the International Working Group for Patient's Right to nutritional care is committed to promote a human rights based approach (HRBA) in the field of clinical nutrition. Our group proposed to unite efforts by launching a global call to action against disease-related malnutrition through The International Declaration on the Human Right to Nutritional Care signed in the city of Vienna during the 44th ESPEN congress on September 5th 2022. The Vienna Declaration is a non-legally binding document that sets a shared vision and five principles for implementation of actions that would promote the access to nutritional care. Implementation programs of the Vienna Declaration should be promoted, based on international normative frameworks as The United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Rome Declaration of the Second International Conference on Nutrition and the Working Plan of the Decade of Action on Nutrition 2016–2025. In this paper, we present the general background of the Vienna Declaration, we set out an international normative framework for implementation programs, and shed a light on the progress made by some clinical nutrition societies. Through the Vienna Declaration, the global clinical nutrition network is highly motivated to appeal to public authorities, international governmental and non-governmental organizations and other scientific healthcare societies on the importance of optimal nutritional care for all patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Purpose: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have significantly reduced complications and length of hospital stay after colorectal procedures. This multimodal concept could probably be partially applied to major urological surgery. Objectives: The primary objective was to systematically assess the evidence of ERAS single items and protocols applied to cystectomy patients. The secondary objective was to address a grade of recommendation to each item, based on the evidence and, if lacking, on consensus opinion from our ERAS Society working group. Evidence acquisition: A systematic literature review was performed on ERAS for cystectomy by searching EMBASE and Medline. Relevant articles were selected and quality-assessed by two independent reviewers using the GRADE approach. If no study specific to cystectomy was available for any of the 22 given items, the authors evaluated whether colorectal guidelines could be extrapolated. Evidence synthesis: Overall, 804 articles were retrieved from electronic databases. Fifteen articles were included in the present systematic review and 7 of 22 ERAS items were studied. Bowel preparation did not improve outcomes. Early nasogastric tube removal reduced morbidity, bowel recovery time and length of hospital stay. Doppler-guided fluid administration allowed for reduced morbidity. A quicker bowel recovery was observed with a multimodal prevention of ileus, including gum chewing, prevention of PONV and minimally invasive surgery. Conclusions: ERAS has not yet been widely implemented in urology and evidence for individual interventions is limited or unavailable. The experience in other surgical disciplines encourages the development of an ERAS protocol for cystectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background & aims: Protocols for enhanced recovery provide comprehensive and evidence-based guidelines for best perioperative care. Protocol implementation may reduce complication rates and enhance functional recovery and, as a result of this, also reduce length-of-stay in hospital. There is no comprehensive framework available for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods: An international working group constructed within the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society constructed a comprehensive and evidence-based framework for best perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy patients. Data were retrieved from standard databases and personal archives. Evidence and recommendations were classified according to the GRADE system and reached through consensus in the group. The quality of evidence was rated “high”, “moderate”, “low” or “very low”. Recommendations were graded as “strong” or “weak”. Results: Comprehensive guidelines are presented. Available evidence is summarised and recommendations given for 27 care items. The quality of evidence varies substantially and further research is needed for many issues to improve the strength of evidence and grade of recommendations. Conclusions: The present evidence-based guidelines provide the necessary platform upon which to base a unified protocol for perioperative care for pancreaticoduodenectomy. A unified protocol allows for comparison between centres and across national borders. It facilitates multi-institutional prospective cohort registries and adequately powered randomised trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]