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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |