Clinical impact of diarrhea during enteral feeding after esophagectomy

3Citations
Citations of this article
16Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Enteral feeding (EF) is recommended to enhance nutritional status after esophagectomy; however, diarrhea is a common complication of EF. We investigated the clinical and prognostic impact of diarrhea during EF after esophagectomy. Methods: One hundred and fifty-two patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy were enrolled. The King's stool chart was used for stool characterization. The short- and long-term outcomes were compared between a non-diarrhea (Group N) and diarrhea group (Group D). Results: A higher dysphagia score (≥ 1) was observed more frequently in Group D than in Group N (45.7% vs. 19.8%, p = 0.002). Deterioration of serum total protein, serum albumin, serum cholinesterase, and the prognostic nutritional index after esophagectomy was greater in Group D than in Group N (p = 0.003, 0.004, 0.014, and 0.001, respectively). Patients in Group D had significantly worse overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) than those in Group N (median survival time (MST): OS, 21.9 vs. 30.6 months, p = 0.001; RFS, 12.4 vs. 27.7 months, p < 0.001). In stratified analysis due to age, although there was no difference in OS with or without diarrhea in young patients (MST: 24.1 months in a diarrhea group vs. 33.6 months in a non-diarrhea group, p = 0.218), patients in a diarrhea group had significantly worse OS than those in a non-diarrhea group in elderly patients (MST: 17.8 months vs. 27.9 months, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Diarrhea during EF can put elderly patients at risk of postoperative malnutrition and a poor prognosis after esophagectomy.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Haneda, R., Hiramatsu, Y., Kawata, S., Soneda, W., Booka, E., Murakami, T., … Takeuchi, H. (2024). Clinical impact of diarrhea during enteral feeding after esophagectomy. International Journal of Clinical Oncology, 29(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-023-02428-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free