2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of enteral nutrition and ecoimmunonutrition on bacterial translocation and cytokine production in patients with severe acute pancreatitis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
87
0
4

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 88 publications
(91 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
87
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…We identified a total of 10 trials with 2888 patients that were conducted in heterogeneous critically ill and surgical patients, trauma and traumatic brain injury, and those with severe acute pancreatitis [550][551][552][553][554][555][556][557][558][559]. No evidence showed that early parenteral nutrition reduced mortality (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87-1.08; n = 2745) or infection risk (RR 1.52; 95% CI 0.88-2.62; n = 2526), but ICU LOS was increased (MD, 0.90; 95% CI 0.38-1.42; n = 46).…”
Section: T Nutritionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We identified a total of 10 trials with 2888 patients that were conducted in heterogeneous critically ill and surgical patients, trauma and traumatic brain injury, and those with severe acute pancreatitis [550][551][552][553][554][555][556][557][558][559]. No evidence showed that early parenteral nutrition reduced mortality (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.87-1.08; n = 2745) or infection risk (RR 1.52; 95% CI 0.88-2.62; n = 2526), but ICU LOS was increased (MD, 0.90; 95% CI 0.38-1.42; n = 46).…”
Section: T Nutritionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several meta-analyses have shown similar results, with significant reductions in infectious complications, mortality and multiorgan dysfunction when enteral nutrition is commenced within the first 48 hours following admission. 61,63,64 A meta-analysis 65 of 4 prospective studies of patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (n = 92) demonstrated no change in intolerance of feeding (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.46-2.59, p = 0.84) or in mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.37-1.62, p = 0.5) when given enteral feeds by nasogastric feeding tube versus nasojejunal feeding tube. In a more recent metaanalysis of 3 RCTs (n = 157), Chang While no high-quality RCTs exist on this topic, to date there has been no evidence to suggest that enteral feeds should be delayed for the purposes of acquiring a nasojejunal feeding tube, especially in light of morbidity and mortality benefits of commencing enteral feeds within the first 48 hours.…”
Section: Nutritionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Seven out of seven articles contained analyzable data on mortal [16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Risk differences and CI were calculated in each article to analyze the effects of EN compared to the NPO nutrition. The calculated average risk difference (RD) was −0.050 (lower limit (LI): −0.134; upper limit (UI): 0.035; p-value: 0.249) (Figure 1).…”
Section: Severe Acute Pancreatitis (Sap) Groupmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thirty-three articles (21 articles containing patients suffering from SAP as well as 12 articles with MAP patients) were selected. They contained two nonrandomized and 31 randomized controlled clinical trials (Table 2) [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]29,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]. Finally, statistical analyses were performed on data from articles where both EN and NPO groups were presented, the trial was randomized, and the relevant data were available.…”
Section: Inclusions and Exclusionsmentioning
confidence: 99%