BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2025
Enteral and parenteral nutrition in patients with cancer: complication rates compared-updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chow Ronald, Im James H B, Arends Jann, Del Fabbro Egidio, Mortensen-Truscott Lukas, Qeska Denis, Balaji Shilpa, Walsh Chris, Watson Geoffrey, Lock Michael, Prsic Elizabeth, Eng Lawson, Zimmermann Camilla, Bruera Eduardo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the complication rates of enteral nutrition (EN) (oral or tube feeding (TF)) and parenteral nutrition (PN) in patients with any cancer.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature until 2024 was conducted, including randomised controlled trials comparing EN and PN with respect to one or more of four endpoints: (1) infection, (2) nutrition support complications, (3) major complications and (4) mortality. A meta-analysis was conducted to generate summary effect estimates. Analysis was stratified by paediatric (≤21 years old) versus adults (>21 years old) patients. Subgroup analyses were conducted, based on including patients with (vs without) protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) and type of EN. Cumulative meta-analysis and leave-one-out analysis was conducted. Type I error was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: 49 studies reporting on 6361 patients were included: 41 reported on adults and 8 on children. Among adults, the infection rate was higher for PN compared with EN (risk ratio=1.07, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.14), with no differences in rates of nutrition support complications, major complications or mortality. Among children, there were no differences in all four endpoints. On cumulative meta-analysis, EN was overall marginally superior to PN for infection, although results fluctuated over time between superiority and no difference. Subgroup analysis found no differences in effects among patients with (vs without) PEM and patients provided with EN options of standard care versus TF.
DISCUSSION: From the perspective of complications, EN and PN are equivalent, with EN demonstrating marginal superiority for infection among adults.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature until 2024 was conducted, including randomised controlled trials comparing EN and PN with respect to one or more of four endpoints: (1) infection, (2) nutrition support complications, (3) major complications and (4) mortality. A meta-analysis was conducted to generate summary effect estimates. Analysis was stratified by paediatric (≤21 years old) versus adults (>21 years old) patients. Subgroup analyses were conducted, based on including patients with (vs without) protein-energy malnutrition (PEM) and type of EN. Cumulative meta-analysis and leave-one-out analysis was conducted. Type I error was set at 0.05.
RESULTS: 49 studies reporting on 6361 patients were included: 41 reported on adults and 8 on children. Among adults, the infection rate was higher for PN compared with EN (risk ratio=1.07, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.14), with no differences in rates of nutrition support complications, major complications or mortality. Among children, there were no differences in all four endpoints. On cumulative meta-analysis, EN was overall marginally superior to PN for infection, although results fluctuated over time between superiority and no difference. Subgroup analysis found no differences in effects among patients with (vs without) PEM and patients provided with EN options of standard care versus TF.
DISCUSSION: From the perspective of complications, EN and PN are equivalent, with EN demonstrating marginal superiority for infection among adults.