Early combined parenteral and enteral nutrition for pancreaticoduodenectomy – Retrospective cohort analysis

Abstract Background Suggested guidelines for nutritional support after pancreaticoduodenectomy are still controversial. Recent evidence suggests that combining enteral nutrition (EN) with parenteral nutrition (PN) improves outcome. For ten years, patients have been treated with Early Combined Parent...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of medicine and surgery 2016-03, Vol.6, p.68-73
Hauptverfasser: Probst, Pascal, Keller, Daniel, Steimer, Johannes, Gmür, Emanuel, Haller, Alois, Imoberdorf, Reinhard, Rühlin, Maya, Gelpke, Hans, Breitenstein, Stefan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background Suggested guidelines for nutritional support after pancreaticoduodenectomy are still controversial. Recent evidence suggests that combining enteral nutrition (EN) with parenteral nutrition (PN) improves outcome. For ten years, patients have been treated with Early Combined Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ECPEN) after PD. The aim of this study was to report on rationale, safety, effectiveness and outcome associated with this method. Methods Consecutive PD performed between 2003 and 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Early EN and PN was standardized and started immediately after surgery. EN was increased to 40 ml/h (1 kcal/ml) over 24 h, while PN was supplemented based on a daily energy target of 25 kcal/kg. Standard enteral and parenteral products were used. Results Sixty-nine patients were nutritionally supplemented according to ECPEN. The median coverage of kcal per patients related to the total caloric requirements during the entire hospitalization (nutrition balance) was 93.4% (range: 100%–69.3%). The nutritional balance in patients with needle catheter jejunostomy (NCJ) was significantly higher than in the group with nasojejunal tube (97.1% vs. 91.6%; p 
ISSN:2049-0801
2049-0801
DOI:10.1016/j.amsu.2016.02.002