Search

Background & Aims: Ensuring patients have adequate physiological reserves to meet the demands of major surgery may necessitate nutritional prehabilitation and perioperative medical nutrition therapy (MNT). Parenteral nutrition (PN) via central or peripheral routes is indicated when requirements cannot be met orally or enterally. While patients undergoing major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery are at high nutritional and catabolic risk, guidance on PN is limited in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols. This survey-based study characterized MNT practices among GI surgeons, and the challenges and opportunities for MNT within the context of ERAS., Methods: This on-line survey comprised questions and attitudinal statements centred on MNT, particularly PN, for major GI surgery patients, and encompassed the spectrum of the surgical pathway (prehabilitation to postoperative care). GI surgeons in Europe were invited to complete the survey. Respondents described their current clinical practices, while their perceptions, unmet needs, and opportunities to improve nutritional management were explored via Likert-scale responses to statements., Results: GI surgeons (N = 130) from different centres in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain completed the survey. Enhanced recovery protocols (75%) and multidisciplinary nutritional care teams (72%) were established in the centres of most respondents; surgeons, dieticians/nutritionists, and nurses were most frequently involved in MNT. Nutritional risk screening was common in the centres surveyed prior to surgery (range: 62% in Italy to 96% in Poland) and undertaken less frequently postoperatively (range: 19% in Poland to 54% in Germany) with varied screening methods. Enteral nutrition insufficiency was the most common reason for prescribing PN (83%) and 56% of surgeons prescribed PN when enteral nutrition (EN) was not feasible. Overall, 71% of respondents agreed that peripherally administered PN (PPN), which does not require a central access route, lessens invasive procedures and benefits selected patients who are in a catabolic state, malnourished, or at nutritional/metabolic risk when oral intake/EN is insufficient. However, only 35% of surgeons used PPN in this scenario and only 47% utilized PPN when a central venous catheter is not available. Most surgeons (69%) agreed that PPN is in line with the ERAS concept of using minimally invasive approaches. The respondents raised a need for increasing awareness of PPN indications (81%), inclusion of PPN recommendations in clinical guidelines (79%), implementation of nutritional support teams (79%), and increased PPN-trained personnel (78%) to improve PPN delivery., Conclusions: PPN is perceived by surgeons (with ≥10 patients per month who receive PN) as a favourable strategy to support timely nutritional support in selected patients undergoing major GI surgery. However, from this clinical practice survey it seems PPN is underutilized in nutritional care practices. Findings from this survey of GI surgeons in Europe emphasize the need to improve early identification of patients who are malnourished or at nutritional/metabolic risk and integrate PPN into ERAS GI surgical pathways, within the framework of minimally invasive approaches., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors report no conflicts of interest in relation to the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Early oral feeding is the preferred mode of nutrition for surgical patients. Avoidance of any nutritional therapy bears the risk of underfeeding during the postoperative course after major surgery. Considering that malnutrition and underfeeding are risk factors for postoperative complications, early enteral feeding is especially relevant for any surgical patient at nutritional risk, especially for those undergoing upper gastrointestinal surgery. The focus of this guideline is to cover both nutritional aspects of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) concept and the special nutritional needs of patients undergoing major surgery, e.g. for cancer, and of those developing severe complications despite best perioperative care. From a metabolic and nutritional point of view, the key aspects of perioperative care include the integration of nutrition into the overall management of the patient, avoidance of long periods of preoperative fasting, re-establishment of oral feeding as early as possible after surgery, the start of nutritional therapy immediately if a nutritional risk becomes apparent, metabolic control e.g. of blood glucose, reduction of factors which exacerbate stress-related catabolism or impaired gastrointestinal function, minimized time on paralytic agents for ventilator management in the postoperative period, and early mobilization to facilitate protein synthesis and muscle function., (Copyright © 2021 European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Malnutrition has been recognized as a major risk factor for adverse postoperative outcomes. The ESPEN Symposium on perioperative nutrition was held in Nottingham, UK, on 14-15 October 2018 and the aims of this document were to highlight the scientific basis for the nutritional and metabolic management of surgical patients., Methods: This paper represents the opinion of experts in this multidisciplinary field and those of a patient and caregiver, based on current evidence. It highlights the current state of the art., Results: Surgical patients may present with varying degrees of malnutrition, sarcopenia, cachexia, obesity and myosteatosis. Preoperative optimization can help improve outcomes. Perioperative fluid therapy should aim at keeping the patient in as near zero fluid and electrolyte balance as possible. Similarly, glycemic control is especially important in those patients with poorly controlled diabetes, with a stepwise increase in the risk of infectious complications and mortality per increasing HbA1c. Immobilization can induce a decline in basal energy expenditure, reduced insulin sensitivity, anabolic resistance to protein nutrition and muscle strength, all of which impair clinical outcomes. There is a role for pharmaconutrition, pre-, pro- and syn-biotics, with the evidence being stronger in those undergoing surgery for gastrointestinal cancer., Conclusions: Nutritional assessment of the surgical patient together with the appropriate interventions to restore the energy deficit, avoid weight loss, preserve the gut microbiome and improve functional performance are all necessary components of the nutritional, metabolic and functional conditioning of the surgical patient., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Background: Malnutrition is associated with increased hospital stay and subsequently higher healthcare costs. Early detection of malnutrition among people accessing health services at public hospitals is vital to identify and treat malnutrition effectively and in a timewise and cost-effective manner. The aim of this study was to evaluate the nutrition risk of this population., Materials and Methods: Nutrition screening was performed for 2970 patients (52% male; 55.3 ± 20.1 years old) at 34 hospitals. Nutrition risk was evaluated through 3 nutrition screening tools-Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002), Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), and Mini Nutritional Assessment-Screening Form (MNA-SF)., Results: Malnutrition risk was found: 25.3% with NRS-2002, 22.9% with MUST, and 60.5% with MNA-SF. Nutrition risk among patients accessing health services at public hospitals increases with age (high-risk patients among those ≥80 years old: NRS-2002, 9.8%; MUST, 16.9%; MNA-SF, 43.9%). The highest prevalence of nutrition risk was found at the oncology departments (16.7%, NRS-2002; 23.4%, MUST). According to the NRS-2002 and MUST, surgical patients have a greater risk for malnutrition vs internal medicine patients (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.0, P < .001; adjusted OR = 1.17, P < .001, respectively), whereas according to MNA-SF, surgical patients have 30% lower probability for malnutrition risk against internal medicine patients (adjusted OR = 0.7, P < .001)., Conclusions: A high prevalence of malnutrition risk was reported among patients accessing health services at public hospitals. Early detection of malnutrition is vital to allow the allocation of the needed workforce to manage it effectively., (© 2017 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.)

Background: The new definition of malnutrition in adults proposed recently by The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) changed the view on the issue and raised the question of the reliability of available diagnostic tools. Therefore, the aim of this study was to verify the accuracy of the two most commonly used screening tools by comparing their findings with the new ESPEN criteria., Methods: Nutritional screening was performed in 1146 (median age 60 years, interquartile range: 44-73 years, 617 males, 529 females) patients on admission to hospitals with two nutritional screening tools: Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) and Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST). The screening results were then compared to the ESPEN new diagnostic criteria for malnutrition., Results: According to the NRS2002 13.5% and 27.9% of the outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were found to be at moderate/high risk of malnutrition. With the use of MUST 9.1% and 14.9% of the outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were found to be at moderate/high risk of malnutrition. According to the ESPEN diagnostic criteria 6.4% and 11.3% of outpatients and hospitalized patients respectively were classified as malnourished. MUST was found to be better correlated to the latter for both outpatients (K = 0.777, p < 0.001) and hospitalized patients (K = 0.843, p < 0.001) as compared to NRS2002 (k = 0.256, p < 0.001 and k = 0.228, p < 0.001). ROC plots Area Under the Curve (AUC) was found to be higher for MUST compared to NRS2002 (0.964 vs. 0.695 for outpatients and 0.980 vs 0.686 for hospitalized patients respectively)., Conclusion: To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze the clinical value of a malnutrition screening tool in the light of the new ESPEN definition for malnutrition. According to our results, MUST was better correlated with ESPEN criteria for the definition of malnutrition, leading us to the conclusion that it can more efficiently identify the malnourished patients, during the screening process., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Protein-energy and micronutrient malnutrition are global public health problems which, when not prevented and severe, require medical management by clinicians with nutrition expertise, preferably as a collectively skilled team, especially when disease-related. This study aimed to investigate barriers and facilitators of clinical nutrition services (CNS), especially the use of oral, enteral (EN) and parenteral (PN) nutrition in institutional and home settings., Methods and Study Design: An international survey was performed between January and December 2014 in twenty-six countries from all continents. Electronic questionnaires were distributed to 28 representatives of clinical nutrition (PEN) societies, 27 of whom responded. The questionnaire comprised questions regarding a country's economy, reimbursement for CNS, education about and the use of EN and PN., Results: The prevalence of malnutrition was not related to gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita (p=0.186). EN and PN were used in all countries surveyed (100%), but to different extents. Reimbursement of neither EN nor PN use depended on GDP, but was associated with increased use of EN and PN in hospitals (p=0.035), although not evident for home or chronic care facilities. The size of GDP did not affect the use of EN (p=0.256), but it mattered for PN (p=0.019)., Conclusions: A worldwide survey by nutrition support societies did not find a link between national economic performance and the implementation of medical nutrition services. Reimbursement for CNS, available through health insurance systems, is a factor in effective nutrition management.

Background and Aim: Malnutrition represents a serious health care threat, as it increases morbidity, mortality and health care cost. The effective screening and treatment with enteral (EN) or parenteral (PN) nutrition are the key elements of the policy called Optimal Nutrition Care for All (ONCA). The study tried to analyze the impact of the state's economy on the implementation of EN and PN to define its role in ONCA., Material and Methods: an international survey in twenty two European countries was performed between January and December 2014. An electronic questionnaire was distributed to 22 representatives of clinical nutrition (PEN) societies. The questionnaire comprised questions regarding country economy, reimbursement, education and the use EN and PN. Return rate was 90.1% (n = 20)., Results: EN and PN were used in all countries surveyed (100%), but to different extent. The country's income significantly influenced the reimbursement for EN and PN (p < 0.05). It was also associated with the overall use of tube feeding and PN (p = 0.05), but not with the use of oral nutritional supplements (p = 0.165). The use of both, EN and PN at hospitals was not depended on the economy (p > 0.05). Education was actively carried out in all countries, however the teaching at the pre-graduate level was the least widespread, and also correlated with the country income (p = 0.042)., Conclusions: Results indicated that economic situation influences all aspects of ONCA, including education and treatment. The reimbursement for EN and PN seemed to be the key factor of effective campaign against malnutrition., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Intestinal failure (IF) is a debilitating condition of inadequate nutrition due to an anatomical and/or physiological deficit of the intestine. Surgical management of patients with acute and chronic IF requires expertise to deal with technical challenges and make correct decisions. Dedicated IF units have expertise in patient selection, operative risk assessment and multidisciplinary support such as nutritional input and interventional radiology, which dramatically improve the morbidity and mortality of this complex condition and can beneficially affect the continuing dependence on parenteral nutritional support. Currently there is little guidance to bridge the gap between general surgeons and specialist IF surgeons. Fifteen European experts took part in a consensus process to develop guidance to support surgeons in the management of patients with IF. Based on a systematic literature review, statements were prepared for a modified Delphi process. The evidence for each statement was graded using Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. The current paper contains the statements reflecting the position and practice of leading European experts in IF encompassing the general definition of IF surgery and organization of an IF unit, strategies to prevent IF, management of acute IF, management of wound, fistula and stoma, rehabilitation, intestinal and abdominal reconstruction, criteria for referral to a specialist unit and intestinal transplantation., (Colorectal Disease © 2016 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Objective: To provide a consensus-based minimum set of criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition to be applied independent of clinical setting and aetiology, and to unify international terminology., Method: The European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) appointed a group of clinical scientists to perform a modified Delphi process, encompassing e-mail communications, face-to-face meetings, in group questionnaires and ballots, as well as a ballot for the ESPEN membership., Result: First, ESPEN recommends that subjects at risk of malnutrition are identified by validated screening tools, and should be assessed and treated accordingly. Risk of malnutrition should have its own ICD Code. Second, a unanimous consensus was reached to advocate two options for the diagnosis of malnutrition. Option one requires body mass index (BMI, kg/m(2)) <18.5 to define malnutrition. Option two requires the combined finding of unintentional weight loss (mandatory) and at least one of either reduced BMI or a low fat free mass index (FFMI). Weight loss could be either >10% of habitual weight indefinite of time, or >5% over 3 months. Reduced BMI is <20 or <22 kg/m(2) in subjects younger and older than 70 years, respectively. Low FFMI is <15 and <17 kg/m(2) in females and males, respectively. About 12% of ESPEN members participated in a ballot; >75% agreed; i.e. indicated ≥7 on a 10-graded scale of acceptance, to this definition., Conclusion: In individuals identified by screening as at risk of malnutrition, the diagnosis of malnutrition should be based on either a low BMI (<18.5 kg/m(2)), or on the combined finding of weight loss together with either reduced BMI (age-specific) or a low FFMI using sex-specific cut-offs., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Background: Disease-related malnutrition (DRM) represents a critical public health concern. Therefore, Fight Against Malnutrition (FAM) should be a state priority, but the degree to which this is true appears to differ considerably among European countries. The aim of this study was to put the problem into perspective by comparing the prevalence of malnutrition in countries from opposite parts of the continent., Methods: Six countries-Croatia, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Poland, and Turkey-participated in the study. A short questionnaire was used to assess DRM: its prevalence, the current situation in hospitals, regulations for reimbursement, and general healthcare circumstances. Data from ESPEN's NutritionDay 2006 were used to broaden the perspective., Results: At admission in October 2012, 4068 patients were assessed. The study was performed in 160 hospitals and 225 units with 9143 beds. The highest proportions of patients with 3 or more points on the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 were observed in Estonia (80.4%) and Turkey (39.4%), whereas the lowest were in Lithuania (14.2%). The provision of nutrition support was best in Turkey (39.4% required intervention, 34.4% received intervention) and Poland (21.9% and 27.8%, respectively). Nutrition support teams (NSTs) are active in some countries, whereas in others they virtually do not exist., Conclusion: The prevalence of malnutrition was quite high in some countries, and the nutrition approach differed among them. It could be the result of the lack of reimbursement, inactive or nonexistent NSTs, and low nutrition awareness. Those facts confirmed that the continuation of FAM activities is necessary., (© 2013 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.)

Background & Aims: Malnourished surgical patients are supposed to benefit from perioperative nutrition. It is unclear, however, whether enteral intervention really surpasses the parenteral one, and whether the modification of standard formula matters. The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical value of the route and type of perioperative nutritional support., Methods: A group of 167 malnourished patients (91 M, 76 F, mean age 61.4 years) operated between June 2001 and December 2008 was randomly assigned during postoperative period to four groups according to nutritional intervention: enteral and parenteral, standard or immunomodulating. All patients received parenteral nutrition before surgery for 14 days, which provided homogenous groups for the postoperative evaluation. The trial was designed to test the hypothesis that enteral nutrition and/or immunonutrition can reduce the incidence of postoperative complications., Results: The incidence of individual complications was comparable among all four groups (p > 0.05). Infectious complications occurred in 23 of 84 patients with standard diets and in 20 of 83 patients receiving immunomodulatory formula (odds ratio 0.84; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.69). There were no significant differences in infectious complications' ratio in patients receiving enteral (24/84 patients) and parenteral formulas (19/83 patients). Neither immunomodulating formulas nor enteral feeding significantly affected the length of hospitalization, overall morbidity and mortality rates., Conclusions: Results demonstrated that postoperative nutritional intervention generates comparable results regardless of the route and formula used and that preoperative intervention is of the utmost importance. The study was registered in the Clinical Trials Database - number: NCT 00558155., (2011 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aim: The immunomodulating nutrition was supposed to reduce the incidence of complications in surgical patients, but many authors have questioned its value recently. The aim of the study was to assess the impact of enteral immunonutrition in postoperative period., Methods: Between January 2003 and December 2009, 305 malnourished patients (123 F, 182 M, m. age 60.8) undergoing resection for pancreatic or gastric cancer, after preoperative 14 days of parenteral feeding, were randomized in double-blind manner to receive either postoperative immunomodulating enteral diet (IMEN) or standard oligopeptide diet (SEN). Outcome measures of the intend-to-treat analysis were: number and type of complications, length of hospitalization, mortality, and vital organ function., Results: Median postoperative hospital stay was 17.1 days in SEN and 13.1 days in IMEN group (p = 0.006). Infectious complications were observed in 60 patients (39.2%) in SEN and 43 (28.3%) in IMEN group (p = 0.04). Differences were also observed in overall morbidity (47.1 vs 33.5%, p = 0.01) and mortality (5.9 vs 1.3%, p = 0.03), but the ratio of surgical complications, organ function, and treatment tolerance did not differ., Conclusions: The study proved that postoperative immunomodulating enteral nutrition should be the treatment of choice in malnourished surgical cancer patients. The Clinical Trials Database registry number: NCT00576940., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)