A comparative Study between Tube Feeding versus Parenteral Nutrition in GIT Cancer Patients in ICU

Abstract Objectives Our study is designed to determine whether providing nutrition via parenteral route or enteral route is better in patients with GIT cancer after surgery in ICU. Background Patients with gastrointestinal malignancy have a higher risk of postoperative complications and alterations...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:QJM : An International Journal of Medicine 2021-10, Vol.114 (Supplement_1)
Hauptverfasser: Abdellatif, Ahmad Antr, Shams, Manal Mohammed Kamal, Helmy, Amr Fouad Hafez
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Objectives Our study is designed to determine whether providing nutrition via parenteral route or enteral route is better in patients with GIT cancer after surgery in ICU. Background Patients with gastrointestinal malignancy have a higher risk of postoperative complications and alterations resulting from their pre and postadmission nutritional status. Malnutrition and subsequent weight loss have long been among the leading causes of morbidity and mortality, as well as increased costs with other organs dysfunction associated to cancer patients undergoing surgery. Methods A prospective randomized clinical trial conducted in critical care units in Ain Shams University Hospitals from August 2017 to February 2019.Eighty patients with GIT cancer were included. Half of them received enteral nutrition and the other half received parenteral nutrition. All patients were compared regarding demographic data, hemodynamic parameters, complications (Infection, GIT symptoms, and central venous line insertion), signs of malnutrition (weight loss and hypoalbuminaemia), time to pass flatus, ICU stay and mortality. An informed written consent was obtained from patients and/or their relatives. Results Postoperative complications occurred in 20 (50%) patients fed enterally versus 23 (57.5%) patients fed parenterally with p = 0.501.Infectious complications happened in 5 (12.5%) patients fed enterally versus 9 (22.5%) patients fed parenterally with p = 0.239.Surgical complications occurred in 3(7.5%) patients fed enterally versus 4(10%) patients fed parenterally with p = 0.905.GIT complications occurred in 9 (22.5%) patients fed enterally versus 6 (15%) patients fed parenterally with p = 0.872.Respiratory complications occurred in 4 (10%) patients fed enterally versus 2(5%) patients fed parenterally with p = 0.708. Time to flatus (days) was 2.90 ±1.0 in enteral group versus 3.78 ±0.8 in parentral group with p = 0.003. ICU stay (days) was 5.50 ±1.8 in enteral group versus 9.83 ±3.40 in parentral group with p = 0.003. Mortality n (%) was 1 (2.5%) in enteral group versus 2 (5.0%) in parentral group with p = 1.000. Albumin after 7 days and albumin after 14 days were increased statistically significantly in patients of enteral nutrition than parenteral nutrition group (p = 0.021) and (p = 0.003) respectively. There was a statistically significance improvement of albumin level within the same group (P = 0.003). There was a statistically significant improvement of weight in pat
ISSN:1460-2725
1460-2393
DOI:10.1093/qjmed/hcab086.002