Early nutrition is safe and does not increase complications after upper gastrointestinal bleeding—a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

• Published in: Scientific reports 2024-05, Vol.14 (1), p.10725-13, Article 10725
• Main Authors: Obeidat, Mahmoud, Teutsch, Brigitta, Floria, Diana-Elena, Veres, Dániel Sándor, Hegyi, Péter, Erőss, Bálint
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 692/4020/1503/1702; 692/4020/1503/197; 692/4020/1503/583; 692/4020/2223; 692/4020/4021; Bleeding; Clinical trials; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - etiology; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage - mortality; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; Length of Stay; Meta-analysis; Mortality; multidisciplinary; Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Science; Science (multidisciplinary); Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 2045-2322; 2045-2322
• DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-61543-z

Despite a lack of evidence, patients are often not fed for 48–96 h after upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB); however, many trials have demonstrated the benefits of early nutrition (EN). We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RTCs) to evaluate the outcomes of EN compared to delayed nutrition (DN) after UGIB. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022372306). PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched on the 27th of April 2024 to identify eligible RCTs. The primary outcomes were early (within 7 days) and late (within 30–42 days) mortality and rebleeding. Pooled risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. A total of 10 trials with 1051 patients were included in the analysis. Early mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (RR 1.20, CI 0.85–1.71, I 2  = 0%), whereas late mortality was reduced to a clinically relevant extent in the EN group (RR 0.61, CI 0.35–1.06, I 2  = 0%). When comparing the two groups, we found no significant difference in terms of early and late rebleeding (RR 1.04, CI 0.66–1.63, I 2  = 0% and RR 1.16, CI 0.63–2.13, I 2  = 0%, respectively). Our analysis also showed that the length of hospital stay was reduced in the EN group compared to the DN group (MD −1.22 days, CI: −2.43 to −0.01, I 2  = 94%). In conclusion, compared with DN, EN (within 24 h) appears to be a safe intervention and could reduce the length of hospital stay without increasing the risk of complications after UGIB.