A randomised controlled trial of six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: report on a pilot and feasibility study

David J Bowrey, Melanie Baker, Vanessa Halliday, Anne L Thomas, Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob, Karen Smith, Tom Morris, Arne Ring, David J Bowrey, Melanie Baker, Vanessa Halliday, Anne L Thomas, Ruth Pulikottil-Jacob, Karen Smith, Tom Morris, Arne Ring

Abstract

Background: Poor nutrition in the first months after oesophago-gastric resection is a contributing factor to the reduced quality of life seen in these patients. The aim of this pilot and feasibility study was to ascertain the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to evaluate routine home enteral nutrition in these patients.

Methods: Patients undergoing oesophagectomy or total gastrectomy were randomised to either six weeks of home feeding through a jejunostomy (intervention), or treatment as usual (control). Intervention comprised overnight feeding, providing 50 % of energy and protein requirements, in addition to usual oral intake. Primary outcome measures were recruitment and retention rates at six weeks and six months. Nutritional intake, nutritional parameters, quality of life and healthcare costs were also collected. Interviews were conducted with a sample of participants, to ascertain patient and carer experiences.

Results: Fifty-four of 112 (48 %) eligible patients participated in the study over the 20 months. Study retention at six weeks was 41/54 patients (76 %) and at six months was 36/54 (67 %). At six weeks, participants in the control group had lost on average 3.9 kg more than participants in the intervention group (95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.6 to 6.2). These differences remained evident at three months (mean difference 2.5 kg, 95 % CI -0.5 to 5.6) and at six months (mean difference 2.5 kg, 95 % CI -1.2 to 6.1). The mean values observed in the intervention group for mid arm circumference, mid arm muscle circumference, triceps skin fold thickness and right hand grip strength were greater than for the control group at all post hospital discharge time points. The economic evaluation suggested that it was feasible to collect resource use and EQ-5D data for a full cost-effectiveness analysis. Thematic analysis of 15 interviews identified three main themes related to the intervention and the trial: 1) a positive experience, 2) the reasons for taking part, and 3) uncertainty of the study process.

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that home enteral feeding by jejunostomy was feasible, safe and acceptable to patients and their carers. Whether home enteral feeding as 'usual practice' is a cost-effective therapy would require confirmation in an appropriately powered, multi-centre study.

Trial registration: UK Clinical Research Network ID 12447 (main trial, first registered 30 May 2012); UK Clinical Research Network ID 13361 (qualitative substudy, first registered 30 May 2012); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01870817 (first registered 28 May 2013).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT diagram indicating participant disposition

References

    1. Ryan AM, Rowley SP, Healy LA, Flood PM, Ravi N, Reynolds JV. Post-oesophagectomy early enteral nutrition via a needle catheter jejunostomy: 8-year experience at a specialist unit. Clin Nutr. 2006;25:386–93. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2005.12.003.
    1. Baker M, Halliday V, Williams RN, Bowrey DJ. A systematic review of the nutritional consequences of esophagectomy. Clinical Nutrition (in press). doi:.
    1. McLarty AJ, Deschamps C, Trastek VF, Allen MS, Pairolero PC, Harmsen WS. Esophageal resection for cancer of the esophagus: long-term function and quality of life. Ann Thor Surg. 1997;63:1568–72. doi: 10.1016/S0003-4975(97)00125-2.
    1. Greene CL, DeMeester SR, Worrell SG, Oh DS, Hagen JA, DeMeester TR. Alimentary satisfaction, gastrointestinal symptoms, and quality of life 10 or more years after esophagectomy with gastric pull-up. J Thor Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;147:909–14. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.11.004.
    1. Gupta V. Benefits versus risks: a prospective audit. Feeding jejunostomy during esophagectomy. World J Surg. 2009;33:1432–8. doi: 10.1007/s00268-009-0019-1.
    1. Couper G. Jejunostomy after oesophagectomy: a review of evidence and current practice. Proc Nutrition Soc. 2011;70:316–20. doi: 10.1017/S0029665111000553.
    1. Martin L, Lagergren P. Long-term weight change after oesophageal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2009;96:1308–14. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6723.
    1. Fenton JR, Bergeron EJ, Coello M, Welsh RJ, Chmielewski GW. Feeding jejunostomy tubes placed during esophagectomy: are they necessary? Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92:504–12. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.03.101.
    1. Tomascek SC, Cassivi SD, Allen MS, Shen R, Nichols FC, Deschamps C, et al. An alternative postoperative pathway reduces length of hospitalization following oesophagectomy. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;37:807–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.09.034.
    1. Fanning M, McHugh A, Browne C, Ravi N, Reynolds JV, Healy LA. Home jejunostomy feeding post-oesophagectomy: a change in practice. Gut. 2012;61:A267. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302514c.200.
    1. Macharg FM, Huddy JR, Priest OH, Preston SR. Extended enteral nutrition via feeding jejunostomy reduces weight loss and readmission following esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2012;25(Suppl):48A.
    1. National Oesophago-Gastric Cancer Audit . Royal College of Surgeons of England. 2010.
    1. Weijs TJ, Berkelmans GHK, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Ruurda JP, Hillegersberg RV, Soeters PB, et al. Routes for early enteral nutrition after oesophagectomy: a systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2015;34:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.07.011.
    1. Jordan S, Philpin S, Warring J, Cheung WJ, Williams J. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies: the burden of treatment from a patient perspective. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56:270–81. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.04006.x.
    1. Nund RL, Ward EC, Scarinci NA, Cartmill B, Kuipers P, Porceddu SV. Carers’ experiences of dysphagia in people treated for head and neck cancer: a qualitative study. Dysphagia. 2014;29:450–8. doi: 10.1007/s00455-014-9527-8.
    1. Brotherton A, Abbott J, Aggett P. The impact of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding upon daily life in adults. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2006;19:355–67. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-277X.2006.00712.x.
    1. Bowrey DJ, Baker M, Halliday V, Thomas AL, Pulikottil-Jacob R, Smith K. Six weeks of home enteral nutrition versus standard care after esophagectomy or total gastrectomy for cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2014;15:187. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-187.
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Nat Cancer Instit. 1993;85:365–76. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365.
    1. Lagergren P, Fayers P, Conroy T, Stein HJ, Sezer O, Hardwick R, et al. Clinical and psychometric validation of a questionnaire module, the EORTC QLQ-OG25, to assess health related quality of life in patients with cancer of the oesophagus, the oesophago-gastric junction and the stomach. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2066–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.005.
    1. McKenzie L, van der Pol M. Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 onto the EQ-5D instrument: the potential to estimate QALYs without generic preference data. Value Health. 2009;12:167–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00405.x.
    1. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. 2009;250:187–96. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2.
    1. Halliday V, Baker M, Thomas AL, Bowrey D. Patient and family caregivers’ experiences of living with a jejunostomy feeding tube after surgery for esophagogastric cancer. J Parent Enter Nutr 2015 (Epub ahead of print). doi:10.1177/0148607115604114
    1. Barlow R, Price P, Reid TD, Hunt S, Clark GWB, Havard TJ, et al. Prospective multicentre randomised controlled trial of early enteral nutrition for patients undergoing major upper gastrointestinal surgical resection. Clin Nutr. 2011;30:560–6. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2011.02.006.
    1. Ryan AM, Reynolds JV, Healy L, Byrne M, Moore J, Brannelly N, et al. Enteral nutrition enriched with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) preserves lean body mass following esophageal cancer surgery: results of a double-blinded randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg. 2009;249:355–63. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31819a4789.
    1. Lobo DN, Williams RN, Welch NT, Aloysius MM, Nunes QM, Padmanabhan J, et al. Early postoperative jejunostomy feeding with an immune modulating diet in patients undergoing resectional surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer: a prospective randomized controlled double-blind study. Clin Nutr. 2006;25:716–26. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2006.04.007.
    1. Sultan J, Griffin SM, Di Franco F, Kirby JA, Shenton BK, Seal CJ, et al. Randomized clinical trial of omega-3 fatty acid-supplemented enteral nutrition versus standard enteral nutrition in patients undergoing oesophagogastric cancer surgery. BJS. 2012;99:346–55. doi: 10.1002/bjs.7799.
    1. Haverkort EB, Binnekade JM, Busch OR, van Berge Henegouwen MI, de Haan RJ, Gouma DJ. Presence and persistence of nutrition-related symptoms during the first year following esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction in clinically disease-free patients. World J Surg. 2010;34:2844–52. doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0786-8.
    1. Behrendt C, Golz T, Roesler C, Bertz H, Wunsch A. What do our patients understand about their trial participation? Assessing patients’ understanding of their informed consent consultation about randomised clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 2011;37:74e–80e. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.035485.
    1. Jenkins V, Farewell V, Farewell D, Darmanin J, Wagstaff J, Langridge C, et al. Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:1402–7. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.113.
    1. Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, St-James MM, Fayers PK, Brown JM. Evidence-based guidelines for determination of sample size and interpretation of the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:89–96. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.28.0107.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner