Abstract:BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis is a common and potentially lethal disease with increasing incidence. Severe cases are characterised by high mortality, and despite improvements in intensive care management, no specific treatment relevantly improves clinical outcomes of the disease. Meta-analyses suggest that enteral nutrition is more effective than conventional treatment consisting of discontinuation of oral intake with use of total parenteral nutrition. However, no systematic review has compared different enteral nutrition formulations for the treatment of patients with acute pancreatitis.OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of different enteral nutrition formulations in patients with acute pancreatitis.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Specialised Register of Clinical Trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from inception to 20 August 2013), EMBASE (from inception to 2013, week 33) and Science Citation Index-Expanded (from 1990 to August 2013); we conducted full-text searches and applied no restrictions by language or publication status.SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised clinical trials assessing enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. We allowed concomitant interventions if they were received equally by all treatment groups within a trial.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data. We performed the analysis using Review Manager 5 (Review Manager 2013) and both fixed-effect and random-effects models. We expressed results as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data, and as mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Analysis was based on an intention-to-treat principle.MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials (1376 participants) in this review. We downgraded the quality of evidence for many of our outcomes on the basis of high risk of bias. Low-quality evidence suggests that immunonutrition decreases all-cause mortality (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). The effect of immunonutrition on other outcomes from a subset of the included trials was uncertain. Subgrouping trials by type of enteral nutrition did not explain any variation in effect. We found mainly very low-quality evidence for the effects of probiotics on the main outcomes. One eligible trial in this comparison reported a higher rate of serious adverse events leading to increased organ failure and mortality due to low numbers of events and low risk of bias. When we excluded this study as a post hoc sensitivity analysis, risks of mortality (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.84), organ failure (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.92) and local septic complications (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72) were lower with probiotics. In one trial assessing immunonutrition with probiotics and fibres, no deaths occurred, but hospital stay was shorter with immunonutrition (MD -5.20 days, 95% CI -8.73 to -1.67). No deaths were reported following semi-elemental enteral nutrition (EN), and the effect on length of hospital stay was small (MD 0.30 days, 95% CI -0.82 to 1.42). Fibre-enriched formulations reduced the number of other local complications (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.87) and length of hospital stay (MD -9.28 days, 95% CI -13.21 to -5.35) but did not significantly affect all-cause mortality (RR 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.84) and other outcomes. Very low-quality evidence from the subgroup of trials comparing EN versus no intervention showed a decrease in all-cause mortality with EN (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.86).AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of low or very low quality for the effects of immunonutrition on efficacy and safety outcomes. The role of supplementation of enteral nutrition with potential immunomodulatory agents remains in question, and further research is required in this area. Studies assessing probiotics yielded inconsistent and almost contrary results, especially regarding safety and adverse events, and their findings do not support the routine use of EN enriched with probiotics in routine clinical practice. However, further research should be carried out to try to determine the potential efficacy or harms of probiotics. Lack of trials reporting on other types of EN assessed and lack of firm evidence regarding their effects suggest that additional randomised clinical trials are needed. The quality of evidence for the effects of any kind of EN on mortality was low, and further studies are likely to have an impact on the finding of improved survival with EN versus no nutritional support. Evidence remains insufficient to support the use of a specific EN formulation.

Timing of enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis: meta-analysis of individuals using a single-arm of randomised trials

Early Versus Delayed Enteral Nutrition In Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis Of Randomized Controlled Trials

Enteral nutrition within 48 hours of admission improves clinical outcomes of acute pancreatitis by reducing complications: a meta-analysis

Early enteral nutrition within 24 hours or between 24 and 72 hours for acute pancreatitis: evidence based on 12 RCTs

Meta-Analysis of Early Enteral Nutrition Provided Within 24 Hours of Admission on Clinical Outcomes in Acute Pancreatitis

The optimal timing of enteral nutrition and its effect on the prognosis of acute pancreatitis: A propensity score matched cohort study

Enteral Nutrition Within 72 H after Onset of Acute Pancreatitis Vs Delayed Initiation

Clinical Value of Endoscopic Placement of Nasojejunal Feeding Tube for Nutritional Support in Patients with Severe Acute Pancreatitis

When to initialize enteral nutrition in patients with severe acute pancreatitis? A retrospective review in a single institution experience (2003-2013)

Impact of Enteral Nutrition Within 24 Hours Versus Between 24 and 48 Hours in Patients With Severe Acute Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Early Versus Delayed Enteral Feeding in Predicted Severe Acute Gallstone Pancreatitis: A Retrospective Study

A Meta-Analysis of Enteral Nutrition and Total Parenteral Nutrition in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Enteral versus Parenteral Feeding in Patients with Predicted Severe Acute Pancreatitis Shows a Significant Reduction in Mortality and in Infected Pancreatic Complications with Total Enteral Nutrition

Analysis of Factors Influencing the Duration of Early Enteral Nutrition Support in Patients Diagnosed with Acute Pancreatitis

A randomised clinical trial to assess the effect of total enteral and total parenteral nutritional support on metabolic, inflammatory and oxidative markers in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (APACHE II > or =6)

Nutrition in acute pancreatitis: when, what and how

Hypocaloric jejunal feeding is better than total parenteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis: results of a randomized comparative study

Effects of Early Versus Delayed Feeding in Patients With Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Early Enteral Nutrition Prevents Intra-abdominal Hypertension and Reduces the Severity of Severe Acute Pancreatitis Compared with Delayed Enteral Nutrition: A Prospective Pilot Study

Enteral nutrition formulations for acute pancreatitis

Early Enteral Nutrition is Related to Decreased In-hospital Mortality and Hospitalization in Patients with Acute Pancreatitis: Data from the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination Database.