Cargando…

Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND: Early oral intake (EOI: initiated within 1 day) and early nasogastric tube removal (ENR: removed ≤2 days) post‐esophagectomy is controversial and subject to significant variation. AIM: Our aim is to provide the most up‐to‐date evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kaaki, Suha, Grigor, Emma J. M., Maziak, Donna E., Seely, Andrew J. E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9124520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34494402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1538
_version_ 1784711757375209472
author Kaaki, Suha
Grigor, Emma J. M.
Maziak, Donna E.
Seely, Andrew J. E.
author_facet Kaaki, Suha
Grigor, Emma J. M.
Maziak, Donna E.
Seely, Andrew J. E.
author_sort Kaaki, Suha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Early oral intake (EOI: initiated within 1 day) and early nasogastric tube removal (ENR: removed ≤2 days) post‐esophagectomy is controversial and subject to significant variation. AIM: Our aim is to provide the most up‐to‐date evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing both topics. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (1946‐06/2019) for RCTs that investigated the effect of EOI and/or ENR post‐esophagectomy with gastric conduit for reconstruction. Our main outcomes of interest were anastomotic leak, aspiration pneumonia, mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Pooled mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RR) estimates were obtained using a DerSimonian random effects model. RESULTS: Two reviewers screened 613 abstracts and identified 6 RCTs eligible for inclusion; 2 regarding EOI and 4 for ENR. For EOI (2 studies, n = 389), was not associated with differences in risk of: anastomotic leak (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.407, 2.500; I(2): 0%), aspiration pneumonia (RR: 1.018; 95% CI: 0.407, 2.500), mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.020, 50.0). The LOS was significantly shorter in the EOI group: LOS (MD: −2.509; 95% CI: −3.489, −1.529; I(2): 90.44%). For ENR (4 studies, n = 295), ENR (removed at POD0‐2 vs. 5–8 days) was not associated with differences in risk of: anastomotic leak (RR: 1.11; 95% CI 0.336, 3.697; I(2): 25.75%) and pneumonia group (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.336, 3.697; I(2): 25.75%), mortality (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.328, 2.308; I(2): 0%)or LOS (MD: 1.618; 95% CI: −1.447, 4.683; I(2): 73.03%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed that EOI as well as ENR post‐esophagectomy do not significantly increase the risk of anastomotic leak, pneumonia, and mortality. The LOS was significantly shorter in the EOI group, and there was no significant difference in the ENR group. A paucity of RCTs has evaluated this question, highlighting the need for further high‐quality evidence to address these vital aspects to post‐esophagectomy care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42019138600
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9124520
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91245202022-05-25 Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis Kaaki, Suha Grigor, Emma J. M. Maziak, Donna E. Seely, Andrew J. E. Cancer Rep (Hoboken) Systematic Reviews BACKGROUND: Early oral intake (EOI: initiated within 1 day) and early nasogastric tube removal (ENR: removed ≤2 days) post‐esophagectomy is controversial and subject to significant variation. AIM: Our aim is to provide the most up‐to‐date evidence from published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) addressing both topics. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase (1946‐06/2019) for RCTs that investigated the effect of EOI and/or ENR post‐esophagectomy with gastric conduit for reconstruction. Our main outcomes of interest were anastomotic leak, aspiration pneumonia, mortality, and length of hospital stay (LOS). Pooled mean differences (MD) and risk ratios (RR) estimates were obtained using a DerSimonian random effects model. RESULTS: Two reviewers screened 613 abstracts and identified 6 RCTs eligible for inclusion; 2 regarding EOI and 4 for ENR. For EOI (2 studies, n = 389), was not associated with differences in risk of: anastomotic leak (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.407, 2.500; I(2): 0%), aspiration pneumonia (RR: 1.018; 95% CI: 0.407, 2.500), mortality (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.020, 50.0). The LOS was significantly shorter in the EOI group: LOS (MD: −2.509; 95% CI: −3.489, −1.529; I(2): 90.44%). For ENR (4 studies, n = 295), ENR (removed at POD0‐2 vs. 5–8 days) was not associated with differences in risk of: anastomotic leak (RR: 1.11; 95% CI 0.336, 3.697; I(2): 25.75%) and pneumonia group (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.336, 3.697; I(2): 25.75%), mortality (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.328, 2.308; I(2): 0%)or LOS (MD: 1.618; 95% CI: −1.447, 4.683; I(2): 73.03%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis showed that EOI as well as ENR post‐esophagectomy do not significantly increase the risk of anastomotic leak, pneumonia, and mortality. The LOS was significantly shorter in the EOI group, and there was no significant difference in the ENR group. A paucity of RCTs has evaluated this question, highlighting the need for further high‐quality evidence to address these vital aspects to post‐esophagectomy care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42019138600 John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9124520/ /pubmed/34494402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1538 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Cancer Reports published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Kaaki, Suha
Grigor, Emma J. M.
Maziak, Donna E.
Seely, Andrew J. E.
Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_short Early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
title_sort early oral intake and early removal of nasogastric tube post‐esophagectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9124520/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34494402
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cnr2.1538
work_keys_str_mv AT kaakisuha earlyoralintakeandearlyremovalofnasogastrictubepostesophagectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT grigoremmajm earlyoralintakeandearlyremovalofnasogastrictubepostesophagectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT maziakdonnae earlyoralintakeandearlyremovalofnasogastrictubepostesophagectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT seelyandrewje earlyoralintakeandearlyremovalofnasogastrictubepostesophagectomyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis