Assessment of Nutritional Status and Nutrition Impact Symptoms in Patients Undergoing Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: Results from the Multi-Centre NOURISH Point Prevalence Study

Background: Identification and treatment of malnutrition are essential in upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer. However, there is limited understanding of the nutritional status of UGI cancer patients at the time of curative surgery. This prospective point prevalence study involving 27 Australian tertiary hospitals investigated nutritional status at the time of curative UGI cancer resection, as well as presence of preoperative nutrition impact symptoms, and associations with length of stay (LOS) and surgical complications. Methods: Subjective global assessment, hand grip strength (HGS) and weight were performed within 7 days of admission. Data on preoperative weight changes, nutrition impact symptoms, and dietary intake were collected using a purpose-built data collection tool. Surgical LOS and complications were also recorded. Multivariate regression models were developed for nutritional status, unintentional weight loss, LOS and complications. Results: This study included 200 patients undergoing oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic surgery. Malnutrition prevalence was 42% (95% confidence interval (CI) 35%, 49%), 49% lost ≥5% weight in 6 months, and 47% of those who completed HGS assessment had low muscle strength with no differences between surgical procedures (p = 0.864, p = 0.943, p = 0.075, respectively). The overall prevalence of reporting at least one preoperative nutrition impact symptom was 55%, with poor appetite (37%) and early satiety (23%) the most frequently reported. Age (odds ratio (OR) 4.1, 95% CI 1.5, 11.5, p = 0.008), unintentional weight loss of ≥5% in 6 months (OR 28.7, 95% CI 10.5, 78.6, p < 0.001), vomiting (OR 17.1, 95% CI 1.4, 207.8, 0.025), reduced food intake lasting 2–4 weeks (OR 7.4, 95% CI 1.3, 43.5, p = 0.026) and ≥1 month (OR 7.7, 95% CI 2.7, 22.0, p < 0.001) were independently associated with preoperative malnutrition. Factors independently associated with unintentional weight loss were poor appetite (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.6, 8.4, p = 0.002) and degree of solid food reduction of <75% (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.2, 9.2, p = 0.02) and <50% (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.5, 15.6, p = 0.008) of usual intake. Malnutrition (regression coefficient 3.6, 95% CI 0.1, 7.2, p = 0.048) and unintentional weight loss (regression coefficient 4.1, 95% CI 0.5, 7.6, p = 0.026) were independently associated with LOS, but no associations were found for complications. Conclusions: Despite increasing recognition of the importance of preoperative nutritional intervention, a high proportion of patients present with malnutrition or clinically significant weight loss, which are associated with increased LOS. Factors associated with malnutrition and weight loss should be incorporated into routine preoperative screening. Further investigation is required of current practice for dietetics interventions received prior to UGI surgery and if this mitigates the impact on clinical outcomes.

Preoperative Nutrition Intervention in Patients Undergoing Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer: Results from the Multi-Centre NOURISH Point Prevalence Study

Background: Preoperative nutrition intervention is recommended prior to upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer resection; however, there is limited understanding of interventions received in current clinical practice. This study investigated type and frequency of preoperative dietetics intervention and nutrition support received and clinical and demographic factors associated with receipt of intervention. Associations between intervention and preoperative weight loss, surgical length of stay (LOS), and complications were also investigated. Methods: The NOURISH Point Prevalence Study was conducted between September 2019 and May 2020 across 27 Australian tertiary centres. Subjective global assessment and weight were performed within 7 days of admission. Patients reported on preoperative dietetics and nutrition intervention, and surgical LOS and complications were recorded. Results: Two-hundred patients participated (59% male, mean (standard deviation) age 67 (10)). Sixty percent had seen a dietitian preoperatively, whilst 50% were receiving nutrition support (92% oral nutrition support (ONS)). Patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were less likely to receive dietetics intervention and nutrition support than oesophageal or gastric surgeries (p < 0.001 and p = 0.029, respectively). Neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.003) and malnutrition (p = 0.046) remained independently associated with receiving dietetics intervention; however, 31.3% of malnourished patients had not seen a dietitian. Patients who received ≥3 dietetics appointments had lower mean (SD) percentage weight loss at the 1-month preoperative timeframe compared with patients who received 0–2 appointments (1.2 (2.0) vs. 3.1 (3.3), p = 0.001). Patients who received ONS for >2 weeks had lower mean (SD) percentage weight loss than those who did not (1.2 (1.8) vs. 2.9 (3.4), p = 0.001). In malnourished patients, total dietetics appointments ≥3 was independently associated with reduced surgical complications (odds ratio 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1, 0.9, p = 0.04), and ONS >2 weeks was associated with reduced LOS (regression coefficient −7.3, 95% CI −14.3, −0.3, p = 0.04). Conclusions: Despite recommendations, there are low rates of preoperative dietetics consultation and nutrition support in this population, which are associated with increased preoperative weight loss and risk of increased LOS and complications in malnourished patients. The results of this study provide insights into evidence–practice gaps for improvement and data to support further research regarding optimal methods of preoperative nutrition support.

131 PRACTICES IN PERIOPERATIVE NUTRITION PRECEDING OR FOLLOWING OESOPHAGECTOMY: RESULTS OF A EUROPEAN SURVEY

The route and type of peri-operative feeding after oesophagectomy varies widely across centres, usually based on local experiences and standing orders. The aim of this survey on perioperative nutrition after oesophagectomy (PONOS) was to create a snapshot the way perioperative nutrition preceding or following oesophagectomy is established across reference centres in Europe, and what the reasons are for preferring one method over another. Methods A survey consisting of four parts was distributed to the membership of 3 European, mainly surgical oriented scientific societies between October 2019 and January 2020. The first part contained some general questions regarding demographics of the participants and type of performed surgery. In the second section, centres were asked about practices in preoperative nutrition. The third section questioned participants about their practices in postoperative nutrition; in the last part the daily practice was reflected against the current available ESPEN guidelines. Results Fifty-one surgeons from 49 centres in 16 countries participated. The majority had a structured nutrition team in their institution. An Enhanced Recovery Pathway was implemented in 2/3 of centres. ESPEN guidelines were followed in 50% of centers. Routine preoperative nutritional assessment was performed in 84%. Preoperative nutritional support consisted mainly of enteral and oral support; immediate postoperatively mostly a combination of oral and enteral or enteral only; at discharge mostly a combination of oral and enteral or only oral nutritional supplementation were used. Timing, definition and means of postoperative oral intake also seemed to differ widely across centres. Conclusion The PONOS survey confirmed our assumption that perioperative feeding after oesophagectomy exists in a wide variety across European centres performing oesophageal resections for cancer. Survey based feedback to the surgical community draws attention to this often underexposed part of the surgical pathway of a patient. As such, this might further enhance the exchange of experiences in order to try to harmonise peri-operative feeding regimen.

Preoperative Nutrition Support May Reduce the Prevalence of Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula after Open Pancreaticoduodenectomy in Patients with High Nutritional Risk Determined by NRS2002

Background. Clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) is a severe complication which may be caused by a perioperative nutrition problem. We aimed to study whether patients with high nutritional risk ( NRS 2002 score ≥ 5 ) might benefit from preoperative nutrition support regarding the risk of CR-POPF after open pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods. Consecutive patients undergoing open pancreaticoduodenectomy with complete record of NRS2002 at two Chinese institutions between 2013 and 2018 were analysed. CR-POPF was diagnosed following the 2016 ISGPS criteria. Nutrition support included oral nutrition supplement and enteral and parenteral nutrition. Clinical and economic outcomes were analysed. Results. 522 cases were included. 135 cases (25.9%) were at high nutritional risk ( NRS 2002 score ≥ 5 ), among which 41 cases (30.4%) received preoperative nutrition support. The CR-POPF rate was significantly lower in the preoperative nutrition support group compared with the no nutrition support group (12.2% versus 28.7%, P = 0.038 ). Multivariate analysis showed that preoperative nutrition support was a protective factor for CR-POPF in patients at high risk [OR 0.339, 95% CI (0.115-0.965), P = 0.039 ]. Higher albumin and a larger diameter of the main pancreatic duct were found to be other protectors for CR-POPF. Conclusions. Patients with high nutritional risk ( NRS 2002 score ≥ 5 ) may profit from preoperative nutritional support manifested in the reduction of CR-POPF.

Effects of preoperative nutrition on postoperative outcomes in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Summary Postoperative enteral nutrition has been widely implemented in esophageal cancer, but the efficacy and safety of preoperative nutrition, particularly immune-enhancing nutrition (IEN), remain controversial. This meta-analysis aims to provide a quantitative synthesis of whether preoperative nutrition improves postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients with resectable esophageal cancer. A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and databases of clinical trials dated up to December 2019. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing postoperative outcomes between esophageal cancer patients with and without preoperative nutritional support were included. Random-effects model was applied in the meta-analysis of primary outcomes (overall complication rate, in-hospital mortality) and secondary outcomes (infectious complication rate, anastomotic leak rate, length of postoperative hospital stay). Complications of feeding tube access and perioperative weight loss were evaluated by qualitative synthesis. Subgroup analyses were performed by stratifying immunonutrition and standard nutrition before surgery. Subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials alone was also done. A total of 15 studies enrolling 1864 participants were included. The overall meta-analysis found that preoperative nutrition could reduce infectious complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.26, 0.98]; I2 = 48%) and length of hospital stay (mean difference = −2.10 day, 95% CI [−3.72, −0.47]; I2 = 78%) after esophagectomy, whereas no significant difference was revealed in the incidence of overall complications (OR = 0.76, 95% CI [0.52, 1.11]; I2 = 32%), in-hospital mortality (OR = 1.03, 95% CI [0.41, 2.61]; I2 = 12%), and anastomotic leak (OR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.69, 1.58]; I2 = 0%). Subgroup of preoperative immunonutrition showed more prominent benefits. The complication rate of feeding tube access was low (1.6–16%). In conclusion, preoperative nutrition is safe in esophageal cancer, but benefits are observed in infectious complication rate and length of stay on a limited scale. IEN holds more advantages over standard nutrition. Randomized trials in the context of nutritional support during neoadjuvant therapy are in demand.