Impact of preoperative nutritional support on clinical outcome in abdominal surgical patients at nutritional risk

• Published in: Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.) Los Angeles County, Calif.), 2012-10, Vol.28 (10), p.1022-1027
• Main Authors: Jie, Bin, Ph.D, Jiang, Zhu-Ming, M.D, Nolan, Marie T., Ph.D, Zhu, Shai-Nan, M.P.H, Yu, Kang, M.S, Kondrup, Jens, M.D
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Abdomen - surgery; Adult; Aged; Biological and medical sciences; China; Clinical outcomes; Complications; Diet; Enteral Nutrition; Feeding. Feeding behavior; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Gastroenterology and Hepatology; Health care; Humans; Length of Stay; Male; Malnutrition; Malnutrition - prevention & control; Middle Aged; Nutrition; Nutritional risk screening; Nutritional Status; Older people; Parenteral Nutrition; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications - prevention & control; Preoperative Care; Preoperative nutritional support; Prospective Studies; Risk; Vertebrates: anatomy and physiology, studies on body, several organs or systems
• ISSN: 0899-9007; 1873-1244
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2012.01.017

Abstract Objective This multicenter, prospective cohort study evaluated the effect of preoperative nutritional support in abdominal surgical patients at nutritional risk as defined by the Nutritional Risk Screening Tool 2002 (NRS-2002). Methods A consecutive series of patients admitted for selective abdominal surgery in the Peking Union Medical College Hospital and the Beijing University Third Hospital in Beijing, China were recruited from March 2007 to July 2008. Data were collected on the nutritional risk screening (NRS-2002), the application of perioperative nutritional support, surgery, complications, and length of stay. A minimum of 7 d of parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition before surgery was considered adequate preoperative nutritional support. Results In total 1085 patients were recruited, and 512 of them were at nutritional risk. Of the 120 patients with an NRS score at least 5, the complication rate was significantly lower in the preoperative nutrition group compared with the control group (25.6% versus 50.6%, P = 0.008). The postoperative hospital stay was significantly shorter in the preoperative nutrition group than in the control group (13.7 ± 7.9 versus 17.9 ± 11.3 d, P = 0.018). Of the 392 patients with an NRS score from 3 to 4, the complication rate and the postoperative hospital stay were similar between patients with and those without preoperative nutritional support ( P = 1.0 and 0.770, respectively). Conclusion This finding suggests that preoperative nutritional support is beneficial to patients with an NRS score at least 5 by lowering the complication rate.