Enteral Versus Parenteral Nutrition in the Conservative Treatment of Upper Gastrointestinal Fistula After Surgery

Plain-language summary

The incidence of clinically significant anastomotic leaks (AL) after upper gastrointestinal (GI) surgery is approximately 4 % - 20 %, and the associated mortality can be as high as 80 % . Nutritional support is a key component of therapy in such cases, related to high prevalence of malnutrition and nil per month required for leak treatment. In the prophylactic setting, before the occurrence of any AL, a literature review based on seven randomised trials showed that enteral nutrition (EN) is associated with shorter hospital stay, lower incidence of severe of infectious complications, lower severity of complications and decreased cost compared to parenteral nutrition (TPN) following major upper GI surgery . In the curative setting, after the AL occurrence, very few evidence is available. Only one randomized clinical trial suggested the superiority of EN versus TPN after pancreatic surgery with a increase of the 30-day fistula closure rate from 37% in the TPN group to 60% in the EN group . This sole randomised study available did not include all postoperative upper GI AL (PUGIAL) that can occur after esophageal, gastric, duodenal, pancreatic surgery (including obesity surgery), whereas the concept of enteral nutritional support is highly relevant for all these situations. However surgeons are usually reluctant to provide EN in case of AL. A randomized study suggested the feasibility of EN in 47 patients with upper GI AL but no randomized study to date has been designed to test the superiority of EN versus TPN in PUGIAL. The study aim is to demonstrate the superiority of EN versus TPN to accelerate AL healing after upper GI surgery. Hypothesis: EN increases the 30-day fistula closure rate in PUGIAL, allowing better HRQOL without increasing morbi-mortality.

Who can participate

What they're measuring

Trial details