Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in the conservative treatment of upper gastrointestinal fistula after surgery: a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label, phase III study (NUTRILEAK study).
Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
Conservative Treatment
Energy Intake
Enteral Nutrition
/ methods
Humans
Intestinal Fistula
/ etiology
Length of Stay
/ statistics & numerical data
Multicenter Studies as Topic
Nutrition Assessment
Parenteral Nutrition, Total
/ methods
Postoperative Care
/ methods
Postoperative Complications
/ etiology
Quality of Life
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Surgical Procedures, Operative
/ adverse effects
Time Factors
Conservative treatment
Enteral nutrition
Parenteral nutrition
Randomized controlled trial
Upper gastrointestinal fistula
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Jun 2020
02 Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
19
07
2019
accepted:
05
05
2020
entrez:
4
6
2020
pubmed:
4
6
2020
medline:
2
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Postoperative upper gastrointestinal fistula (PUGIF) is a devastating complication, leading to high mortality (reaching up to 80%), increased length of hospital stay, reduced health-related quality of life and increased health costs. Nutritional support is a key component of therapy in such cases, which is related to the high prevalence of malnutrition. In the prophylactic setting, enteral nutrition (EN) is associated with a shorter hospital stay, a lower incidence of severe infectious complications, lower severity of complications and decreased cost compared to total parenteral nutrition (TPN) following major upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. There is little evidence available for the curative setting after fistula occurrence. We hypothesize that EN increases the 30-day fistula closure rate in PUGIF, allowing better health-related quality of life without increasing the morbidity or mortality. The NUTRILEAK trial is a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label phase III trial to assess the efficacy of EN (the experimental group) compared with TPN (the control group) in patients with PUGIF. The primary objective of the study is to compare EN versus TPN in the treatment of PUGIF (after esophagogastric resection including bariatric surgery, duodenojejunal resection or pancreatic resection with digestive tract violation) in terms of the 30-day fistula closure rate. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the 6-month postrandomization fistula closure rate, time of first fistula closure (in days), the medical- and surgical treatment-related complication rate at 6 months after randomization, the fistula-related complication rate at 6 months after randomization, the type and severity of early (30 days after randomization) and late fistula-related complications (over 30 days after randomization), 30-day and 6-month postrandomization mortality rate, nutritional status at day 30, day 60, day 90 and day 180 postrandomization, the mean length of hospital stay, the patient's health-related quality of life (by self-assessment questionnaire), oral feeding time and direct costs of treatment. A total of 321 patients will be enrolled. The two nutritional supports are already used in daily practice, but most surgeons are reluctant to use the enteral route in case of PUGIF. This study will be the first randomized trial testing the role of EN versus TPN in PUGIF. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03742752. Registered on 14 November 2018.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Postoperative upper gastrointestinal fistula (PUGIF) is a devastating complication, leading to high mortality (reaching up to 80%), increased length of hospital stay, reduced health-related quality of life and increased health costs. Nutritional support is a key component of therapy in such cases, which is related to the high prevalence of malnutrition. In the prophylactic setting, enteral nutrition (EN) is associated with a shorter hospital stay, a lower incidence of severe infectious complications, lower severity of complications and decreased cost compared to total parenteral nutrition (TPN) following major upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery. There is little evidence available for the curative setting after fistula occurrence. We hypothesize that EN increases the 30-day fistula closure rate in PUGIF, allowing better health-related quality of life without increasing the morbidity or mortality.
METHODS/DESIGN
METHODS
The NUTRILEAK trial is a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, open-label phase III trial to assess the efficacy of EN (the experimental group) compared with TPN (the control group) in patients with PUGIF. The primary objective of the study is to compare EN versus TPN in the treatment of PUGIF (after esophagogastric resection including bariatric surgery, duodenojejunal resection or pancreatic resection with digestive tract violation) in terms of the 30-day fistula closure rate. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the 6-month postrandomization fistula closure rate, time of first fistula closure (in days), the medical- and surgical treatment-related complication rate at 6 months after randomization, the fistula-related complication rate at 6 months after randomization, the type and severity of early (30 days after randomization) and late fistula-related complications (over 30 days after randomization), 30-day and 6-month postrandomization mortality rate, nutritional status at day 30, day 60, day 90 and day 180 postrandomization, the mean length of hospital stay, the patient's health-related quality of life (by self-assessment questionnaire), oral feeding time and direct costs of treatment. A total of 321 patients will be enrolled.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
The two nutritional supports are already used in daily practice, but most surgeons are reluctant to use the enteral route in case of PUGIF. This study will be the first randomized trial testing the role of EN versus TPN in PUGIF.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03742752. Registered on 14 November 2018.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32487210
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04366-3
pii: 10.1186/s13063-020-04366-3
pmc: PMC7265255
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03742752']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
448Subventions
Organisme : French Ministry of health
ID : Protocol N°: 2016_74
Références
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017 Feb;43(2):258-269
pubmed: 27396305
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Apr 1;31(10):1357-70
pubmed: 23460705
World J Gastroenterol. 2008 Aug 28;14(32):5073-7
pubmed: 18763292
Int J Surg. 2012;10(4):194-7
pubmed: 22414681
J Visc Surg. 2014 Dec;151(6):441-50
pubmed: 25455960
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2007 Oct;17(4):647-62
pubmed: 17967372
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):1-45
pubmed: 19489710
Qual Life Res. 1996 Feb;5(1):162-4
pubmed: 8901379
Gastroenterology. 2011 Jul;141(1):157-63, 163.e1
pubmed: 21439962
Gastroenterology. 2006 Feb;130(2 Suppl 1):S93-9
pubmed: 16473079
World J Surg Oncol. 2010 Aug 16;8:71
pubmed: 20712902
Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016 Aug;17(4):491-7
pubmed: 27183504
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Feb;61(2):523-32
pubmed: 26537488
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014 Aug;20(4):438-43
pubmed: 24999793
Obes Surg. 2016 Jan;26(1):21-5
pubmed: 26071239
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jan;19(1):99-103
pubmed: 21769467
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Jul;19(7):2128-34
pubmed: 22322948
Gut. 2001 Dec;49 Suppl 4:iv22-31
pubmed: 11878791
Surg Endosc. 2013 Jan;27(1):240-5
pubmed: 22752283
PLoS One. 2015 Jan 28;10(1):e0117483
pubmed: 25629619
J Visc Surg. 2012 Oct;149(5):e325-36
pubmed: 23107793
Arch Surg. 1992 Jan;127(1):97-9; discussion 100
pubmed: 1346491
Surg Clin North Am. 1996 Oct;76(5):1035-80
pubmed: 8841363
Clin Nutr. 2011 Oct;30(5):560-6
pubmed: 21601319
BMJ. 2013 Jan 08;346:e7586
pubmed: 23303884
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
Dis Esophagus. 2013 Aug;26(6):587-93
pubmed: 23237356
Crit Care Med. 2001 Feb;29(2):242-8
pubmed: 11246300