Nasogastric nutrition is efficacious in severe acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 11 (21st October 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nally, Deirdre M.; Kelly, Enda G.; Clarke, Mary; Ridgway, Paul
• Is Part Of: British journal of nutrition. Volume 112:Issue 11(2014)
• Page Start: 1769
• Page End: 1778
• Publication Date: 2014-10-21
• Subjects: Nasogastric feeding, -- Enteral nutrition, -- Severe acute pancreatitis; Nutrition -- Periodicals; 572.4
• DOI: 10.1017/S0007114514002566
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1145

Abstract

Abstract : In 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.