经皮内窥镜引导下胃造口术的欧洲肠外肠内营养学会指南解读

经皮内窥镜引导下胃造口术(PEG)是一项简便、高效、安全的置管技术,尤其对不能经口进食患者的营养支持有不可替代的作用,应严格按照适应证、道德标准、禁忌证来选择行PEG的患者.早期开展PEG,能明显改善生活质量.

Abstract：

Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is an convenient, effective, and safe technique,and is especially useful for the nutritional support of patients who are unable to befedorally. PEG should be carefully arranged based on indications, ethical criteria, and contraindications. Early PEG can remarkably improve the quality of life.     

肠内营养与肠外营养对危重症临床疗效的Meta分析

目的:通过Meta分析方法系统评价肠内营养(EN)与肠外营养(PN)对危重症的临床疗效。方法:检索Pub Med、Embase、Springerlink、Medline、中国知网、万方、维普数据库(建库至2016年4月22日),纳入有关肠内营养与肠外营养治疗的随机对照试验(RCT),以总并发症发生率、总感染率、肺炎发生率、尿路感染率、脓毒症及其他感染发病率、死亡率、住院时间等为效应指标,由两名研究者独立对入选文献的质量和研究结果进行摘录,应用Review Manager 5.3进行Meta分析。结果 :Meta分析结果显示,与肠外营养相比,肠内营养显著降低了总感染发生率(OR=0.54,P=0.04)、肺炎发生率(OR=0.65,P=0.04)及脓毒症及其他感染发生率(OR=0.59,P=0.04),两者在总并发症发生率、尿路感染率、死亡率及住院时间均无显著差异。结论 :肠内营养能显著降低危重症病人感染的发生,特别是降低肺炎、脓毒症及相关性炎症反应的发生。     

A Call to Action for Optimizing the Electronic Health Record in the Parenteral Nutrition Workflow

Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a complex therapeutic modality provided to neonates, children, and adults for various indications. Surveys have shown that current electronic health record (EHR) systems are in need of functionality enhancement for safe and optimal delivery of PN. This is a consensus statement from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists outlining some of the key challenges to prescribing, order review/verification, compounding, and administration of PN using EHRs today and is a call to action for clinicians and vendors to optimize their EHRs regarding the PN build and workflow.     

Forty-Third ASPEN Presidential Address: “Our Time Is Now—Challenges and Strategies for the Field of Nutrition”

I am grateful for this opportunity to address the ASPEN community and the international colleagues gathered at the ASPEN 2019 Nutrition Science and Practice Meeting. I have used this platform to revisit some of the historical beginnings of our field and our organization, and illustrate some of the lessons learned. I have outlined 5 challenges facing the field of nutrition during our times and discussed strategies that might help navigate them. These challenges are, healthcare finance, biotechnology disruption, safety, research, and knowledge transfer. These challenges will require nutrition providers to adapt to changing times. We must be prepared to show the “value” of the care provided. The impact of nutrition therapies must be unequivocally demonstrated on meaningful patient outcomes, thereby emphasizing the relevance and value of the services we provide. As clinical nutrition professionals, we must embrace the rapid pace of biotechnology advance and harness its power to assist us and our patients. The provision of safe nutrition care to our patients is the fundamental aspect of the ASPEN vision. I remain confident in our collective strengths, our sense of purpose, and our ability to rise above the challenges we face. Together with our global partners we will deliver on the promise of safe, efficacious, low-cost, and high-quality nutrition that will improve patient outcomes and population health.     

Nutrition Support and the Gastrointestinal Microbiota: A Systematic Review

BackgroundLow microbial diversity or altered microbiota composition is associated with many disease states. In the treatment of many conditions, enteral (EN) or parenteral (PN) nutrition is frequently required.ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to identify and evaluate the evidence of the effect of EN vs PN on the gastrointestinal microbiota.MethodA comprehensive systematic literature search of 5 databases was completed to review studies published until February 2020. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were utilized in completion of the review with the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics quality criteria checklist and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to evaluate the included studies. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018091328). Studies were eligible for inclusion if participants were older than 3 years, patients received either EN, PN or both, with some patients receiving each mode of nutrition support. The main outcome was any assessment of the gastrointestinal microbiota, including diversity or taxa abundance.ResultsEleven articles (n = 367 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Seven studies (n = 237) reported greater abundance of Proteobacteria with the provision of PN compared to EN; 6 studies (n = 172) reported lower Firmicutes and 5 studies (n = 155) lower Bacteroidetes. In 7 studies (n = 282), microbial diversity was lower with provision of PN than EN. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation certainty of evidence was very low.ConclusionsProvision of PN may lead to greater abundance of Proteobacteria and reduced microbial diversity; however, there is limited literature on this topic and additional research is warranted to improve understanding of the impact of EN vs PN on the microbiota.     

Enteral and Parenteral Order Writing Survey—A Collaborative Evaluation Between the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ Dietitians in Nutrition Support Dietetics Practice Group and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Dietetics Practice Section

IntroductionIn 2014 and 2017, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services authorized nutrition-related ordering privileges for registered dietitian nutritionists (RDNs) in hospital and long-term care settings, respectively. Despite this practice advancement, information describing current parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) ordering practices is lacking. Dietitians in Nutrition Support, a dietetic practice group of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the Dietetics Practice Section of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) utilized a survey to describe PN and EN ordering practices among RDNs in the United States.MethodsA cross-sectional study design was utilized to describe RDN PN and EN ordering privileges. Respondents were asked to describe PN and EN ordering privileges, primary practice setting, primary patient population served, nutrition specialty certification, highest degree earned, career length, and, if applicable, the nature of prior denials for ordering privileges or reasons for not applying for ordering privileges.ResultsSeven hundred two RDNs completed the survey (12% response rate), with 664 RDNs providing complete data. The majority of respondents (n=558) cared for adult/geriatric patients. Among this subset, 47% had no PN ordering privileges; 14% could order and sign PN; 28% could order PN with provider cosignature; and 10% could order partial PN with provider cosignature. Nineteen percent of RDNs had no EN ordering privileges; 37% could order and sign EN; and 44% could order EN with provider cosignature. RDNs with ordering privileges were more likely to have a nutrition specialty certification and work in an academic or community hospital setting.ConclusionPN and EN ordering privileges are varied because of institution and state requirements. Future research describing the outcomes associated with RDN ordering privileges is needed. This article has been approved by the Academy’s Research, International, and Scientific Affairs team and Council on Research and the ASPEN Board of Directors. This article has been co-published with permission in Nutrition in Clinical Practice. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.     

Forty‐Fourth ASPEN Presidential Address: The 2020 Overture—A New Tune for the Future

The provision of safe nutrition care to patients is the fundamental vision of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN). Yet we are facing important challenges in our field and society, requiring us to reflect, rethink, and adjust to make new breakthroughs to meet the needs for the future. In developing new plans to address these challenges, we must focus on 2 critical elements: people and the scientific process. Government and organizations cannot carry on their missions without people. But with the challenges of healthcare finance, biotechnology disruption, the desire to facilitate knowledge transfer and now the impact of the global pandemic, we need to develop a forward‐thinking and sustainable approach to connect people and foster continued learning. Burnout is a recognized occupational problem that affects providers and researchers across all disciplines. The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has amplified the challenges associated with burnout. Supporting the needs and promoting the well‐being of people, therefore, are critical to move forward successfully. At the same time, the scientific advances in our field rely on sound scientific principles and integrity. Information overload, pressure to produce immediate outcomes (such as cost‐saving initiatives), and misinformation can compromise the scientific process and research evidence. The two common missteps that affect researchers, clinicians, and administrators include premature factulation and binary thinking. We will discuss how these missteps can occur and the approaches to minimize their influence in making sound decisions and policies to meet the future's needs.     

早期肠内营养支持对重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病急性加重期治疗后呼吸功能及营养状态改善的影响

目的探讨在重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)急性加重期治疗中采用早期肠内营(EN)养支持的效果。方法收集朝阳市第四医院2017年1月-2019年12月收治的重度COPD急性加重期患者90例,随机分为对照组和观察组各45例。对照组采用肠外营养(PN)续贯EN模式;观察组采用早期持续EN模式,比较两组患者的呼吸功能,血离子和维生素水平。结果两组患者经营养支持治疗后,pH、PaO₂、PaCO₂、SaO、FVC、FEV₁和FEV₁/FVC差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);外周血K、Na、Cl、Ca、P和Mg离子差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);维生素A、维生素B、维生素C、维生素D和维生素E差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在重度COPD急性加重期治疗过程中早期应用EN,能够有效改善患者的营养状态且促进呼吸功能恢复,值得临床广泛采用。     

肠外联合肠内序贯营养降低重症卒中病人肺部感染及上消化道出血风险

目的 :通过对缺血性卒中危重病人急性期采取不同营养支持方案的对照研究,探讨卒中危重病人急性期合理的营养支持策略。方法 :采用前瞻性研究方法,将50例急性卒中病人按照随机单盲原则分为入院发病24 h内给与单纯肠内营养组及肠内营养联合肠外营养组。比较两组间肺部感染、胃潴留、上消化道出血、低血糖及高血糖的发生率。以20 d转出ICU为终点事件,Kaplan-Meier法比较分析两组之间差异。结果 :肠外营养联合肠内营养(PN+EN)组和肠内营养(EN)组在高血糖和低血糖发生率上无差异(P0.05),EN组胃潴留及上消化道出血、腹泻及肺炎发生率明显高于PN+EN组(P0.01)。结论 :危重卒中病人急性期采取肠外联合肠内序贯营养可降低肺部感染、胃潴留及上消化道出血等并发症,可能缩短ICU住院时程。     

21世纪的营养和代谢支持

需要开展新的研究来证实可能改善临床效果的新措施,这些措施包括：转向肠内方式输入营养物质,减少过多的热卡输入,利用营养物质达到药物治疗效果,使用生长因子增加营养物质的作用,于择期手术前应用营养物质,即进行预防性营养。对这些新进展的验证将使我们在未来把营养支持人一种辅助的疗法变成对病人治疗的首要或次要方式。     

营养支持小组建立的意义

目的：探讨建立营养支持小组对院内临床营养支持疗效的影响。方法：将1999年1月－2000年4月间的317例病人以我院营养支持小组成立时为界,分为成立前（BET组）、成立后（AET组）两组。对两组病人营养持状况及其并发症发生情况作对照组。结果：AET组营养支持前接受全面的营养状况评估、营养支持治疗中进行营养监测、肠外营养选择TNA、方式及中心静脉输注途径、肠内营养持采用管饲方式的人数比例较BET组均有显著提高（P＜0．05）。AET组的肠外营养支持中导管及代谢并发症发生率、肠内营养支持中胃肠道及代谢并发症发生率较BET组有显著下降（P＜0．05）。结论：建立营养支持小组能使使临床营养支持的规范化程度提高,有效地降低营养支持相关并发症的发生率,是推动营养支持在临床上更为有效、安全、合理应用的一种良好方式。     

术后早期应用含膳食纤维的肠内营养对胃癌病人营养状况和免疫功能的影响

目的: 研究含膳食纤维(DF)的EN对于胃癌病人营养状况和免疫功能的影响. 方法: 将60例胃癌病人随机分为TPN组和EN组,EN组再分为要素膳EN组(百普素组)和含膳食纤维EN组(能全力组),每组20例.试验周期为7 d.术后第1天开始给予等氮、等热量的营养支持1周.检测术前和术后第8天病人的体质量、血清ALB、TF和累计氮平衡等营养指标,并同时检测外周血淋巴细胞计数、淋巴细胞亚群(CD3、CD4、CD8、IL-2受体)和NK细胞等细胞免疫指标以及IgG、IgM、IgA、补体C3、C4、CH50和CRP等体液免疫指标. 结果: 三组病人术后第8天体质量均较术前明显下降(P<0.001),组间无差异.三组病人血清ALB水平术后第8天均明显下降,但EN组较TPN组下降幅度小(P<0.05).累计7 d氮平衡TPN组为-(23.4±10.3) g,百普素组为-(24.14±15.36) g,能全力组为-(23.66±13.44) g,组间无明显差异.EN组CD3、CD4、CRP和IgM水平明显提高;TPN组NK细胞水平明显下降,而IgA水平明显升高. 结论: 胃癌病人术后早期进行EN是安全、可行、有效的.膳食纤维有助于术后病人肠道功能及早恢复.EN支持对改善病人术后营养状况和细胞免疫功能方面优于TPN.     

胃癌全胃切除术后肠内营养和肠外营养临床研究

目的：探讨早期肠内营养与肠外营养对胃癌全胃切除术后的营养效果比较。方法：选择本院收治的2008年3月-2012年7月的胃癌全胃切除术患者共62例作为研究对象,随机分成早期肠内营养组（EEN）和肠外营养组（PN）,比较两组患者营养效果。结果：EEN组患者营养支持术后7d其BWI、ALB、PA、HGB、TF等营养指标均明显优于PN组（P〈0．05）;EEN组患者肛门排气时间、排便时间以及住院时间等明显少于PN组（P〈0．05）;两组不良反应发生情况比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：早期肠内营养支持可有效改善患者的营养状态,促进患者的康复,值得临床推广。     

危重症患者胃肠内与胃肠外营养支持疗效观察

目的 观察胃肠内与胃肠外营养支持对危重症（ICU）患者的治疗效果,探讨两种营养支持途径的临床价值.方法 危重症患者60例,随机分为胃肠道营养组30例和胃肠外营养组30例.在治疗前及治疗15 d后对两组患者血红蛋白、总蛋白、清蛋白等营养指标进行比较.结果 胃肠道营养组治疗后各项指标较治疗前增高,差异有统计学意义 （P〈0 05）;胃肠外营养组治疗后各项指标较治疗前增高,但差异无统计学意义（P〉0 05）.两组治疗后清蛋白比较,差异具有统计学意义（P〈0 05）.结论 胃肠内营养支持能较好的改善患者营养状况,是危重患者的理想支持方式.