Fabian Grass

Immunonutrition in gastrointestinal surgery.

Patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery are at increased risk of developing complications. The use of immunonutrition (IN) in such patients is not widespread because the available data are heterogeneous, and some show contradictory results with regard to complications, mortality and length of hospital stay.

Preoperative immunonutrition in patients at nutritional risk: results of a double-blinded randomized clinical trial.

Background/Objectives:To evaluate the impact of preoperative immunonutrition (IN) on postoperative morbidity in patients at risk of malnutrition undergoing major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery.Subjects/Methods:The combination of malnutrition and major GI surgery entails high morbidity. The Nutritional Risk Score (NRS) reliably identifies patients who need preoperative nutrition; the optimal nutritional formula for these patients still needs to be defined. In all, 152 patients with a NRS⩾3 and undergoing elective major GI surgery were randomized between IN or isocaloric-isonitrogenous nutrition (ICN) given for 5 days preoperatively. Patients and caregivers were blinded for the allocated intervention. Thirty days complication rate was the primary endpoint. Infections, length of hospital stay and compliance were considered as secondary outcomes.Results:Overall, 145 patients were available for analysis; the 73 patients in the IN group matched well with the 72 ICN patients with regards to patients and surgical characteristics. In all, 39 IN and 33 ICN patients experienced a total of 48 and 50 postoperative complications, respectively (P=0.723). Both groups did not differ significantly concerning infectious (13 vs 9) complications. Independent risk factors for overall complications were malignant disease (odds ratio (OR)=4.304; confidence interval (CI) 1.317–14.002) and operative time (OR=1.004; CI 1.000–1.008).Conclusion:In patients at nutritional risk, complications, infections and hospital stay after major GI surgery were comparable regardless of preoperative supplementation with IN or ICN.

Systematic review of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced peritoneal carcinomatosis

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a minimally invasive approach under investigation as a novel treatment for patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis of various origins. The aim was to review the available evidence on mechanisms, clinical effects and risks.

Perioperative nutrition is still a surgical orphan: results of a Swiss-Austrian survey

Background/Objectives:There is strong evidence for the beneficial effects of perioperative nutrition in patients undergoing major surgery. We aimed to evaluate implementation of current guidelines in Switzerland and Austria.Subjects/Methods:A survey was conducted in 173 Swiss and Austrian surgical departments. We inquired about nutritional screening, perioperative nutrition and estimated clinical significance.Results:The overall response rate was 55%, having 69% (54/78) responders in Switzerland and 44% (42/95) in Austria. Most centres were aware of reduced complications (80%) and shorter hospital stay (59%). However, only 20% of them implemented routine nutritional screening. Non-compliance was because of financial (49%) and logistic restrictions (33%). Screening was mainly performed in the outpatients clinic (52%) or during admission (54%). The nutritional risk score was applied by 14% only; instead, various clinical (78%) and laboratory parameters (56%) were used. Indication for perioperative nutrition was based on preoperative screening in 49%. Although 23% used preoperative nutrition, 68% applied nutritional support pre- and postoperatively. Preoperative nutritional treatment ranged from 3 days (33%), to 5 (31%) and even 7 days (20%).Conclusions:Although malnutrition is a well-recognised risk factor for poor post-operative outcome, surgeons remain reluctant to implement routine screening and nutritional support according to evidence-based guidelines.

Feasibility and Safety of Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy for Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background. Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) has been introduced as a novel repeatable treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis. The available evidence from the pioneer center suggests good tolerance and high response rates, but independent confirmation is needed. A single-center cohort was analyzed one year after implementation for feasibility and safety. Methods. PIPAC was started in January 2015, and every patient was entered into a prospective database. This retrospective analysis included all consecutive patients operated until April 2016 with emphasis on surgical feasibility and early postoperative outcomes. Results. Forty-two patients (M : F = 8 : 34, median age 66 (59–73) years) with 91 PIPAC procedures in total (4×: 1,  3×: 17,  2×: 12, and  1×: 12) were analyzed. Abdominal accessibility rate was 95% (42/44); laparoscopic access was not feasible in 2 patients with previous HIPEC. Median initial peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) was 10 (IQR 5–17). Median operation time was 94 min (89–108) with no learning curve observed. One PIPAC application was postponed due to intraoperative intestinal lesion. Overall morbidity was 9% with 7 minor complications (Clavien I-II) and one PIPAC-unrelated postoperative mortality. Median postoperative hospital stay was 3 days (2-3). Conclusion. Repetitive PIPAC is feasible in most patients with refractory carcinomatosis of various origins. Intraoperative complications and postoperative morbidity rates were low. This encourages prospective studies assessing oncological efficacy.

Compliance with preoperative oral nutritional supplements in patients at nutritional risk─only a question of will?

Background/Objectives:Preoperative nutrition has been shown to reduce morbidity after major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery in selected patients at risk. In a randomized trial performed recently (NCT00512213), almost half of the patients, however, did not consume the recommended dose of nutritional intervention. The present study aimed to identify the risk factors for noncompliance.Subjects/Methods:Demographic (n=5) and nutritional (n=21) parameters for this retrospective analysis were obtained from a prospectively maintained database. The outcome of interest was compliance with the allocated intervention (ingestion of ⩾11/15 preoperative oral nutritional supplement units). Uni- and multivariate analyses of potential risk factors for noncompliance were performed.Results:The final analysis included 141 patients with complete data sets for the purpose of the study. Fifty-nine patients (42%) were considered noncompliant. Univariate analysis identified low C-reactive protein levels (P=0.015), decreased recent food intake (P=0.032) and, as a trend, low hemoglobin (P=0.065) and low pre-albumin (P=0.056) levels as risk factors for decreased compliance. However, none of them was retained as an independent risk factor after multivariate analysis. Interestingly, 17 potential explanatory parameters, such as upper GI cancer, weight loss, reduced appetite or co-morbidities, did not show any significant correlation with reduced intake of nutritional supplements.Conclusions:Reduced compliance with preoperative nutritional interventions remains a major issue because the expected benefit depends on the actual intake. Seemingly, obvious reasons could not be retained as valid explanations. Compliance seems thus to be primarily a question of will and information; the importance of nutritional supplementation needs to be emphasized by specific patients’ education.

Lower gastrointestinal bleeding—Computed Tomographic Angiography, Colonoscopy or both?

BackgroundLower endoscopy (LE) is the standard diagnostic modality for lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). Conversely, computed tomographic angiography (CTA) offers an immediate non-invasive diagnosis visualizing the entire gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this study was to compare these 2 modalities with regards to diagnostic value and bleeding control.MethodsTertiary center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients admitted for LGIB between 2006 and 2012. Comparison of patients with LE vs. CTA as first exam, respectively, with emphasis on diagnostic accuracy and bleeding control.ResultsFinal analysis included 183 patients; 122 (66.7%) had LE first, while 32 (17.5%) had CTA; 29 (15.8%) had neither of both exams. Median time to CTA was shorter compared to LE (3 (IQR = 8.2) vs. 22 (IQR = 36.9) hours, P < 0.001). Active bleeding was identified in 31% with CTA vs. 15% with LE (P = 0.031); a non-actively bleeding source was found by CTA and LE in 22 vs. 31%, respectively (P = 0.305). Bleeding control required endoscopy in 19%, surgery in 14% and embolization in 1.6%, while 66% were treated conservatively. Post-interventional bleeding was mostly controlled by endoscopic therapy (57%). 80% of patients with active bleeding on CTA required surgery.ConclusionsPost-interventional LGIB was effectively addressed by LE. For other causes of LGIB, CTA was efficient, and more available than colonoscopy. Treatment was conservative for most patients. In case of active bleeding, CTA could localize the bleeding source and predict the need for surgery.

Nutritional Status Deteriorates Postoperatively Despite Preoperative Nutritional Support

Background/Aims: The aim of the current study was to assess the postoperative evolution of nutritional status and to relate it with postoperative outcomes. Methods: Demographic, surgical and nutritional parameters were assessed 10 days preoperatively (d-10) and 30 days postoperatively (d30) in 146 patients. Risk factors responsible for perioperative (>5% between d-10 and d30) weight loss were identified. Overall, severe (Clavien 3-5) and infectious complications were compared in patients with and without perioperative weight loss (>5%). Results: Nutritional status worsened beyond the postoperative period as reflected by decreasing weight (67 ± 13 kg at d-10 vs. 63 ± 13 kg at d30, p < 0.001), body mass index (23.4 ± 4 vs. 22.2 ± 4 kg/m2, p < 0.001) and mid upper-arm muscle circumference (MAMC, 241 ± 32 vs. 232 ± 30 mm, p < 0.001). Fifty-two patients (46%) lost >5% of their body weight between d-10 and d30. Patients who presented overall (63 vs. 36%, p = 0.004) and major (27 vs. 10%, p = 0.016) postoperative complications were at significantly higher risk to deteriorate postoperative nutritional status. Multivariate analysis identified low preoperative lean body mass (OR 3.2; 95% CI 1.2-8.9, p = 0.023) and low preoperative MAMC (OR 2.5; 95% CI 0.9-6.8, p = 0.066) as independent risk factors for perioperative weight loss. Conclusions: These data suggest continuing nutritional follow-up after the index hospitalization.

Minimally invasive surgery and enhanced recovery after surgery: The ideal combination?

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and minimally invasive surgery are both in the limelight due to their potential positive effects on surgical outcome. Large randomized trials and meta‐analyses validated the use of both, laparoscopy and ERAS protocol, as individual measures. A synergistic effect of both entities might contribute to even better outcomes. This review hence assessed the literature upon up‐to‐date studies combining both methods.

Influence of Enhanced Recovery Pathway on Surgical Site Infection after Colonic Surgery

Background The present study aimed to evaluate a potential effect of ERAS on surgical site infections (SSI). Methods Colonic surgical patients operated between May 2011 and September 2015 constituted the cohort for this retrospective analysis. Over 100 items related to demographics, surgical details, compliance, and outcome were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database. SSI were traced by an independent National surveillance program. Risk factors for SSI were identified by univariate and multinomial logistic regression. Results Fifty-four out of 397 patients (14%) developed SSI. Independent risk factors for SSI were emergency surgery (OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.09–1.78, p = 0.026), previous abdominal surgery (OR 1.7; 95% CI 1.32–1.87, p = 0.004), smoking (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.22–1.89, p = 0.014), and oral bowel preparation (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.34–1.97, p = 0.013), while minimally invasive surgery (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.16–0.56, p < 0.001) protected against SSI. Compliance to ERAS items of >70% was not retained as a protective factor for SSI after multivariate analysis (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.46–1.92, p = 0.86). Conclusions Smoking, open and emergency surgery, and bowel preparation were risk factors for SSI. ERAS pathway had no independent impact while minimally invasive approach did. This study was registered under ResearchRegistry.com (UIN researchregistry2614).