Evidence Hub

Early Enteral Nutrition versus Early Supplemental Parenteral Nutrition in Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of Two Randomized Clinical Trials

Xuejin Gao, Yupeng Zhang, Xin Qi, Yaqin Xiao, T. Gao, Gang Jin, Kunhua Wang, Yan-Bing Zhou et al.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2024

314 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The effect of the early isoenergetic feeding routes (early enteral nutrition [EN] or early supplemental parenteral nutrition [SPN]) on the outcome of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of early isoenergetic EN versus early isoenergetic SPN on nosocomial infection in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

This study is a secondary, post-hoc analysis of data from two open-label randomized clinical trials. Participants were recruited from the general surgery department of 11 academic hospitals in China undergoing major abdominal surgery and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 score ≥3. All eligible patients were categorized into two groups based on their achievement of the 100% energy target on postoperative day 3; the early enteral nutrition group (E-EN; n=199) and the early supplemental parenteral nutrition group (E-SPN; n=115). The primary outcome was the incidence of nosocomial infections between postoperative day 3 and hospital discharge.

RESULTS

In total, 314 patients [mean (SD) age, 59.2 (11.4) years; 113 (36.0%) females] were included. Patients in the E-EN group showed no significant difference in nosocomial infections compared to those in the E-SPN group (17/199 [8.5%] vs. 10/115 [8.7%], risk difference, 0.2% [95% confidence interval: -6.3 to 6.6]). The hematological nutritional status of the E-EN group showed a significant improvement at discharge as compared…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 314 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free