Arja Gerritsen

Systematic review of five feeding routes after pancreatoduodenectomy

Current European guidelines recommend routine enteral feeding after pancreato‐duodenectomy (PD), whereas American guidelines do not. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal feeding route after PD.

Efficacy and complications of nasojejunal, jejunostomy and parenteral feeding after pancreaticoduodenectomy.

BackgroundEuropean nutritional guidelines recommend routine use of enteral feeding after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) whereas American guidelines do not. Data on the efficacy and, especially, complications of the various feeding strategies after PD are scarce.MethodsRetrospective monocenter cohort study in 144 consecutive patients who underwent PD during a period wherein the routine post-PD feeding strategy changed twice. Patients not receiving nutritional support (n=15) were excluded. Complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) definitions. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Primary endpoint was the time to resumption of normal oral intake.Results129 patients undergoing PD (111 pylorus preserving) were included. 44 patients (34%) received enteral nutrition via nasojejunal tube (NJT), 48 patients (37%) via jejunostomy tube (JT) and 37 patients (29%) received total parenteral nutrition (TPN). Groups were comparable with respect to baseline characteristics, Clavien ≥II complications (P=0.99), in-hospital stay (P=0.83) and mortality (P=0.21). There were no differences in time to resumption of normal oral intake (primary endpoint; NJT/JT/TPN: median 13, 16 and 14 days, P=0.15) and incidence of delayed gastric emptying (P=0.30). Duration of enteral nutrition was shorter in the NJT- compared to the JT- group (median 8 vs. 12 days, P=0.02). Tube related complications occurred mainly in the NJT-group (34% dislodgement). In the JT-group, relaparotomy was performed in three patients (6%) because of JT-leakage or strangulation leading to death in one patient (2%). Wound infections were most common in the TPN group (NJT/JT/TPN: 16%, 6% and 30%, P=0.02).ConclusionNone of the analysed feeding strategies was found superior with respect to time to resumption of normal oral intake, morbidity and mortality. Each strategy was associated with specific complications. Nasojejunal tubes dislodged in a third of patients, jejunostomy tubes caused few but potentially life-threatening bowel strangulation and TPN doubled the risk of infections.

Early oral feeding after pancreatoduodenectomy enhances recovery without increasing morbidity

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a change in the routine feeding strategy applied after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) from nasojejunal tube (NJT) feeding to early oral feeding improved clinical outcomes. METHODS An observational cohort study was performed in 102 consecutive patients undergoing PD. In period 1 (n = 51, historical controls), the routine postoperative feeding strategy was NJT feeding. This was changed to a protocol of early oral feeding with on-demand NJT feeding in period 2 (n = 51, consecutive prospective cohort). The primary outcome was time to resumption of adequate oral intake. RESULTS The baseline characteristics of study subjects in both periods were comparable. In period 1, 98% (n = 50) of patients received NJT feeding, whereas in period 2, 53% (n = 27) of patients did so [for delayed gastric empting (DGE) (n = 20) or preoperative malnutrition (n = 7)]. The time to resumption of adequate oral intake significantly decreased from 12 days in period 1 to 9 days in period 2 (P = 0.015), and the length of hospital stay shortened from 18 days in period 1 to 13 days in period 2 (P = 0.015). Overall, there were no differences in the incidences of complications of Clavien-Dindo Grade III or higher, DGE, pancreatic fistula, postoperative haemorrhage and mortality between the two periods. CONCLUSIONS The introduction of an early oral feeding strategy after PD reduced the time to resumption of adequate oral intake and length of hospital stay without negatively impacting postoperative morbidity.

Developing a core set of patient-reported outcomes in pancreatic cancer: A Delphi survey

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are amongst the most relevant outcome measures in pancreatic cancer care and research. However, it is unknown which out of the numerous PROs are most important to patients and health care professionals (HCPs) in this setting. The aim of this study was to identify a core set of PROs to be incorporated in a nationwide prospective multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a two-round Delphi survey among 150 patients diagnosed with pancreatic or periampullary cancer (treated either with curative intent or in palliative setting) and 78 HCPs (surgeons, medical oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiotherapists, nurses, and dietitians) in The Netherlands. In round 1, participants were invited to rate the importance of 53 PROs, which were extracted from 17 different PRO measures and grouped into global domains, on a 1-9 Likert scale. PROs rated as very important (score 7-9) by the majority (≥ 80%) of curative and/or palliative patients as well as HCPs were considered sufficiently important to be incorporated in the core set. PROs not fulfilling these criteria in round 1 were presented again to the participants in round 2 along with individual and group feedback. RESULTS A total of 97 patients (94%) in curative-intent setting, 38 patients (81%) in palliative setting and 73 HCPs (94%) completed both rounds 1 and 2. After the first round, 7 PROs were included in the core set: general quality of life, general health, physical ability, satisfaction with caregivers, satisfaction with services and care organisation, coping and defecation. After the second round, 10 additional PROs were added: appetite, ability to work/do usual activities, medication use, weight changes, fatigue, negative feelings, positive feelings, fear of recurrence, relationship with partner/family, and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy use. CONCLUSION This study provides a core set of PROs selected by patients and HCPs, which may be incorporated in pancreatic cancer care and research. Validation outside the Dutch context is recommended for generalisation and use in international studies.

Electromagnetic-Guided Bedside Placement of Nasoenteral Feeding Tubes by Nurses Is Non-Inferior to Endoscopic Placement by Gastroenterologists: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives:Electromagnetic (EM)-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may improve efficiency and reduce patient discomfort and costs compared with endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists. However, evidence supporting this task shift from gastroenterologists to nurses is limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of EM-guided and endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement.Methods:We performed a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial in 154 adult patients who required nasoenteral feeding and were admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five Dutch hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo EM-guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. The primary end point was the need for reinsertion of the feeding tube (e.g., after failed initial placement or owing to tube-related complications) with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 10%.Results:Reinsertion was required in 29 (36%) of the 80 patients in the EM-guided group and 31 (42%) of the 74 patients in the endoscopy group (absolute risk difference −6%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval 7%; P for non-inferiority=0.022). No differences were noted in success and complication rates. In the EM-guided group, there was a reduced time to start of feeding (424 vs. 535 min, P=0.001). Although the level of discomfort was higher in the EM-guided group (Visual Analog Scale (VAS) 3.9 vs. 2.0, P=0.009), EM-guided placement received higher recommendation scores (VAS 8.2 vs. 5.5, P=0.008).Conclusions:EM-guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses was non-inferior to endoscopic placement by gastroenterologists in surgical patients and may be considered the preferred technique for nasoenteral feeding tube placement.

Electromagnetic-Guided Versus Endoscopic Placement of Nasojejunal Feeding Tubes After Pancreatoduodenectomy: A Prospective Pilot Study

Objective An altered anatomy such as after pancreatoduodenectomy is currently seen as relative contraindication for bedside electromagnetic (EM)-guided nasojejunal feeding tube placement. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and safety of bedside EM-guided placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes as compared with endoscopy in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods We performed a prospective monocenter pilot study in patients requiring enteral feeding after pancreatoduodenectomy (July 2012–March 2014). Primary end point was the success rate of primary tube placement confirmed on plain abdominal x-ray followed by successful enteral feeding. Results Overall, 53 (42%) of 126 patients who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy required a nasojejunal feeding tube, of which 36 were placed under EM guidance and, in 17, it was placed by endoscopy. Initial tube placement was successful in 21 (58%) of 36 patients with EM guidance and 9 (53%) of 17 patients with endoscopy (P = 0.71). No complications occurred during the placement procedures. Dislodgement and/or blockage of the tube occurred in 14 (39%) of 36 patients in the EM-guided group and 8 (47%) of 17 patients in the endoscopic group (P = 0.57). Conclusions Bedside EM-guided placement of nasojejunal feeding tubes by nurses was equally successful as endoscopic placement in patients after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Electromagnetic guided bedside or endoscopic placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients (CORE trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BackgroundGastroparesis is common in surgical patients and frequently leads to the need for enteral tube feeding. Nasoenteral feeding tubes are usually placed endoscopically by gastroenterologists, but this procedure is relatively cumbersome for patients and labor-intensive for hospital staff. Electromagnetic (EM) guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes by nurses may reduce patient discomfort, workload and costs, but randomized studies are lacking, especially in surgical patients. We hypothesize that EM guided bedside placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes is at least as effective as endoscopic placement in surgical patients, at lower costs.Methods/DesignThe CORE trial is an investigator-initiated, parallel-group, pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. A total of 154 patients admitted to gastrointestinal surgical wards in five hospitals, requiring nasoenteral feeding, will be randomly allocated to undergo EM guided or endoscopic nasoenteral feeding tube placement. Primary outcome is reinsertion of the feeding tube, defined as the insertion of an endoscope or tube in the nose/mouth and esophagus for (re)placement of the feeding tube (e.g. after failed initial placement or dislodgement or blockage of the tube). Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes, costs and tube (placement) related complications.DiscussionThe CORE trial is designed to generate evidence on the effectiveness of EM guided placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes in surgical patients and the impact on costs as compared to endoscopic placement. The trial potentially offers a strong argument for wider implementation of this technique as method of choice for placement of nasoenteral feeding tubes.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register: NTR4420, date registered 5-feb-2014

Nutritional support and therapy in pancreatic surgery: A position paper of the International Study Group on Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS)

Background The optimal nutritional therapy in the field of pancreatic surgery is still debated. Methods An international panel of recognized pancreatic surgeons and pancreatologists decided that the topic of nutritional support was of importance in pancreatic surgery. Thus, they reviewed the best contemporary literature and worked to develop a position paper to provide evidence supporting the integration of appropriate nutritional support into the overall management of patients undergoing pancreatic resection. Strength of recommendation and quality of evidence were based on the approach of the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation Working Group. Results The measurement of nutritional status should be part of routine preoperative assessment because malnutrition is a recognized risk factor for surgery‐related complications. In addition to patients weight loss and body mass index, measurement of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity should be considered in the preoperative evaluation because they are strong predictors of poor short‐term and long‐term outcomes. The available data do not show any definitive nutritional advantages for one specific type of gastrointestinal reconstruction technique after pancreatoduodenectomy over the others. Postoperative early resumption of oral intake is safe and should be encouraged within enhanced recovery protocols, but in the case of severe postoperative complications or poor tolerance of oral food after the operation, supplementary artificial nutrition should be started at once. At present, there is not enough evidence to show the benefit of avoiding oral intake in clinically stable patients who are complicated by a clinically irrelevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (a so‐called biochemical leak), while special caution should be given to feeding patients with clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula orally. When an artificial nutritional support is needed, enteral nutrition is preferred whenever possible over parenteral nutrition. After the operation, regardless of the type of pancreatic resection or technique of reconstruction, patients should be monitored carefully to assess for the presence of endocrine and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. Although fecal elastase‐1 is the most readily available clinical test for detection of pancreatic exocrine insufficiency, its sensitivity and specificity are low. Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy should be initiated routinely after pancreatoduodenectomy and in patients with locally advanced disease and continued for at least 6 months after surgery, because untreated pancreatic exocrine insufficiency may result in severe nutritional derangement. Conclusion The importance of this position paper is the consensus reached on the topic. Concentrating on nutritional support and therapy is of utmost value in pancreatic surgery for both short‐ and long‐term outcomes.

The Dutch Pancreas Biobank Within the Parelsnoer Institute: A Nationwide Biobank of Pancreatic and Periampullary Diseases

Objectives Large biobanks with uniform collection of biomaterials and associated clinical data are essential for translational research. The Netherlands has traditionally been well organized in multicenter clinical research on pancreatic diseases, including the nationwide multidisciplinary Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group and Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. To enable high-quality translational research on pancreatic and periampullary diseases, these groups established the Dutch Pancreas Biobank. Methods The Dutch Pancreas Biobank is part of the Parelsnoer Institute and involves all 8 Dutch university medical centers and 5 nonacademic hospitals. Adult patients undergoing pancreatic surgery (all indications) are eligible for inclusion. Preoperative blood samples, tumor tissue from resected specimens, pancreatic cyst fluid, and follow-up blood samples are collected. Clinical parameters are collected in conjunction with the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. Results Between January 2015 and May 2017, 488 patients were included in the first 5 participating centers: 4 university medical centers and 1 nonacademic hospital. Over 2500 samples were collected: 1308 preoperative blood samples, 864 tissue samples, and 366 follow-up blood samples. Conclusions Prospective collection of biomaterials and associated clinical data has started in the Dutch Pancreas Biobank. Subsequent translational research will aim to improve treatment decisions based on disease characteristics.

Percutaneous Transhepatic Feeding Tube Placement: Single-center Experience In 40 Consecutive Patients.

A dequate nutrition is essential in surgical patients. 1 In conditions or complications prohibiting oral intake, such as duodenal perforation or postoperative delayed gastric emptying, enteral nutrition is required to facilitate the recovery process. Enteral access can be obtained via various routes, but all routes have their specific downsides. In case of the need for prolonged enteral access, a feeding jejunostomy or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (with jejunal extension) is usually recommended, because nasoenteral feeding tubes are discomforting and tend to dislodge. Transhepatic feeding tube placement may offer a suitable alternative in patients who also require prolonged percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), for instance because of duodenal perforation, perioperative biliary decompression, or surgical complications. The transhepatic feeding tube allows enteral access through a percutaneous route, which is already necessary for biliary drainage (Fig. 1). Several case reports have reported on transhepatic feeding tubes, but to date evidence about the feasibility and long term application in a larger population is lacking. We aimed to determine the application and feasibility of percutaneous transhepatic feeding tube placement. We performed a retrospective single-center cohort study in all consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous transhepatic feeding tube placement between April 2003 and February 2015 in the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, which is a national referral center for PTBD and bile duct injuries. Patients were considered for transhepatic feeding tube placement when they had a PTBD catheter and required prolonged enteral access for either enteral nutrition or bile restitution. Patients were identified by a search in a prospectively maintained database of all interventional radiological procedures performed within the study period. Percutaneous transhepatic feeding tube placement was performed by 1 of 3 interventional radiologists with extensive experience with PTBD. After insertion of a guide wire through the