Meta-Analysis of Enteral Nutrition versus Total Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Severe Acute Pancreatitis

2008 ◽  
Vol 53 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 268-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yunfei Cao ◽  
Yinglong Xu ◽  
Tingna Lu ◽  
Feng Gao ◽  
Zengnan Mo
Keyword(s):  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Total Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Severe Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of total parenteral nutrition versus total enteral nutrition for patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 3948-3958 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen Li ◽  
Jixi Liu ◽  
Shuqiao Zhao ◽  
Jingtao Li
Keyword(s):  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Total Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Severe Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Total Enteral Nutrition

Objective This study was performed to systematically compare the safety and efficacy of total enteral nutrition (TEN) and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) for patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Methods The PubMed database was searched up to January 2017, and nine studies were retrieved. These studies were selected according to specific eligibility criteria. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed, and the study design, interventions, participant characteristics, and final results were then analyzed by Review Manager 5.3 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Results Nine relevant randomized controlled trials involving 500 patients (244 patients in the TEN group and 256 patients in the TPN group) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed a significantly lower mortality rate in the TEN than TPN group [odds ratio (OR), 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.18–0.54]. The duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter in the TEN than TPN group (mean difference, −0.59; 95% CI, −2.56–1.38). Compared with TPN, TEN had a lower risk of pancreatic infection and related complications (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22–0.77), organ failure (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06–0.52), and surgical intervention (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.05–0.62). Conclusions This meta-analysis indicates that TEN is safer and more effective than TPN for patients with SAP. When both TEN and TPN have a role in the management of SAP, TEN is the preferred option.

956 Enteral Nutrition Is Superior to Total Parenteral Nutrition in Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2008 ◽  
Vol 134 (4) ◽  
pp. A-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadim S. Jafri ◽  
Suhal S. Mahid ◽  
Swapna K. Gopathi ◽  
Carlton A. Hornung ◽  
Susan Galandiuk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Total Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Severe Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Meta Analysis

Effects of Enteral Nutrition vs Total Parenteral Nutrition in Outcomes of Acute Pancreatitis: A Pooled Meta-Analysis

2016 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. S52-S53
Author(s):  
Ajai S. Rajabalan ◽  
Tamer Said Ahmed ◽  
Samir V. Patel ◽  
Thara Vidyasagaran ◽  
Vishnu R. Mani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Total Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals A Meta-Analysis of Enteral Nutrition and Total Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis

2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heming Quan ◽  
Xingpeng Wang ◽  
Chuanyong Guo
Keyword(s):  
Acute Pancreatitis ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Total Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Feeding Method ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Pancreatic Infection ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Objective. To analyze the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and enteral nutrition (EN) in patients with acute pancreatitis.Methods. Randomized controlled trials of TPN and EN in patients with acute pancreatitis were searched in NCBI and CBM databases and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Six studies were enrolled into the analysis, and the details about the trial designs, characters of the subjects, results of the studies were reviewed by two independent authors and analyzed by STATA 11.0 software.Results. Compared with TPN, EN was associated with a significantly lower incidence of pancreatic infection complications (RR=0.556, 95% CI 0.436∼0.709,P=.000), MOF (RR=0.395, 95% CI 0.272∼0.573,P=.003), surgical interventions (RR=0.556, 95% CI 0.436∼0.709,P=.000), and mortality (RR=0.426, 95% CI 0.238∼0.764,P=.167). There was no statistic significance in non-pancreatitis-related complications (RR=0.853, 95% CI 0.490∼1.483,P=.017). However, EN had a significantly higher incidence of non-infection-related complications (RR=2.697, 95% CI 1.947∼3.735,P=.994).Conclusion. EN could be the preferred nutrition feeding method in patients with acute pancreatitis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document