RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis are well established, the optimal composition of enteral feeding is largely unknown. The aim of the study was to compare the tolerance and safety of enteral nutrition formulations in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: Electronic databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register) and the proceedings of major pancreatology conferences were searched. RESULTS: Twenty randomized controlled trials, including 1070 patients, met the inclusion criteria. None of the following was associated with a significant difference in feeding intolerance: the use of (semi)elemental versus polymeric formulation (relative risk (RR) 0.62 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.10 to 3.97); P = 0.611); supplementation of enteral nutrition with probiotics (RR 0.69 (95 per cent c.i. 0.43 to 1.09); P = 0.110); or immunonutrition (RR 1.60 (95 per cent c.i. 0.31 to 8.29); P = 0.583). The risk of infectious complications and death did not differ significantly in any of the comparisons. CONCLUSION: The use of polymeric, compared with (semi)elemental, formulation does not lead to a significantly higher risk of feeding intolerance, infectious complications or death in patients with acute pancreatitis. Neither the supplementation of enteral nutrition with probiotics nor the use of immunonutrition significantly improves the clinical outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Nutrición Enteral , Alimentos Formulados/efectos adversos , Pancreatitis/terapia , Enfermedad Aguda , Fibras de la Dieta/administración & dosificación , Fibras de la Dieta/efectos adversos , Alimentos Formulados/análisis , Humanos , Sesgo de Publicación , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There has been controversy concerning the merits of enteral and parenteral nutrition compared with no supplementary nutrition in the management of patients with acute pancreatitis. AIM: To perform a systematic review of the data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in acute pancreatitis that compares enteral nutrition with no supplementary nutrition, parenteral nutrition with no supplementary nutrition and enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition. METHODS: A search was undertaken in the MEDLINIE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs were included. Enteral nutrition, when compared with no supplementary nutrition, was associated with no significant change in infectious complications: ratio of relative risks (RR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07-4.32, P = 0.58, but a significant reduction in mortality: ratio of RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.70, P = 0.01. Parenteral nutrition, when compared with no supplementary nutrition, was associated with no significant change in infectious complications: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.18-10.40; P = 0.77, but a significant reduction in mortality: RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13-0.97, P = 0.04. Enteral nutrition, when compared with parenteral nutrition, was associated with a significant reduction in infectious complications: RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.30-0.57, P < 0.001, but no significant change in mortality: RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.32-1.14, P = 0.12. CONCLUSIONS: The use of either enteral or parenteral nutrition, in comparison with no supplementary nutrition, is associated with a lower risk of death in acute pancreatitis. Enteral nutrition is associated with a lower risk of infectious complications compared with parenteral nutrition.