4.7 Article

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

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu13093205

Keywords

gastrointestinal cancer; preoperative; dietitian; nutrition support; malnutrition

Funding

  1. Nestle Health Science
  2. Australian Society of Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition (AuSPEN)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated preoperative dietetics intervention and nutrition support received by patients, as well as factors associated with these interventions. The results showed low rates of preoperative dietetics consultation and nutrition support in the population, which were associated with increased preoperative weight loss and risk of increased LOS and complications in malnourished patients.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available