Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Sep 4;99(36):e21988.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000021988.

Home enteral nutrition after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Li Liu  1 , Yu-Cui Wang  2 , Qian-Wen Liu  1 , Jiu-di Zhong  1 , Jin-Bo Li  1 , Xiao-Dan Wu  1 , Hui-Ying Qin  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Home enteral nutrition after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Li Liu et al. Medicine (Baltimore). .

Abstract

Background: Not only has the placement rate of enteral feeding tubes during operations for esophageal cancer increased, but also has number of patients who choose to continue enteral feeding at home instead of removing the feeding tube at discharge. The impacts of home enteral nutrition (HEN) after esophagectomy in esophageal cancer patients are analyzed.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines. English and Chinese databases, including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, CBM, CNKI, and Wan Fang were searched from inception to December 7, 2019. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the short-term outcomes of HEN following esophagectomy in cancer patients were included. The risk of bias of the included studies was appraised according to the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The summary of relative risk/weighted mean difference (WMD) estimates and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using fixed- and random-effects models.

Results: Nine randomized controlled trials involving 757 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with oral diet, HEN was associated with significantly increased body weight (WMD 3 kg, 95% CI 2.36-3.63, P < .001), body mass index (WMD 0.97 kg/m, 95% CI 0.74-1.21, P < .001), albumin (WMD 3.43 g/L, 95% CI 2.35-4.52, P < .001), hemoglobin (WMD 7.23 g/L, 95% CI 5.87-8.59, P < .001), and total protein (WMD 5.13 g/L, 95% CI 3.7-6.56, P < .001). No significant differences were observed in prealbumin and gastrointestinal adverse reactions. Physical (WMD 8.82, 95% CI 6.69-10.95, P < .001) and role function (WMD 12.23, 95% CI 2.72-21.74, P = .01) were also significantly better in the HEN group. The nausea/vomiting (WMD -5.43, 95% CI -8.29 to -2.57, P = .002) and fatigue symptoms (WMD -11.76, 95% CI -16.21 to -7.32, P < .001) were significantly reduced. Appetite loss (WMD -8.48, 95% CI -14.27 to -4.88, P = .001), diarrhea (WMD -3.9, 95% CI -7.37 to -0.43, P = .03), and sleep disturbance (WMD -7.64, 95% CI -12.79 to -2.5, P = .004) in the HEN group were also significantly less than the control group.

Conclusions: HEN improved nutrition status, physical and role function, and reduced nausea/vomiting, fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhea, and sleep disturbance compared with an oral diet in esophageal cancer patients postsurgery. HEN did not increase adverse reactions.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of studies identified, included and excluded (PRISMA).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias graph.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A–B). Forest plots comparing the anthropometric measurements. (A) body weight, (B) body mass index.
Figure 4
Figure 4
(A–D) Forest plots compare the change of hematological parameters from discharge. (A) serum albumin, (B) hemoglobin, (C) total protein, (D) pre-albumin.
Figure 5
Figure 5
(A) Nutritional assessment. (B) Forest plot compared nutritional assessment.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Forest plot comparing gastrointestinal adverse rates.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:394–424.. - PubMed
    1. Rustgi AK, El-Serag HB. Esophageal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2014;371:2499–509.. - PubMed
    1. Cohen DJ, Leichman L. Controversies in the treatment of local and locally advanced gastric and esophageal cancers. J Clin Oncol 2015;33:1754–9.. - PubMed
    1. Martin L, Lagergren P. Risk factors for weight loss among patients surviving 5 years after esophageal cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol 2015;22:610–6.. - PubMed
    1. Bozzetti F, Mariani L, Lo Vulio S, et al. The nutritional risk in oncology: a study of 1,453 cancer outpatients. Support Care Cancer 2012;20:1919–28.. - PMC - PubMed