Pancreatic cancer is the most common medical condition that requires pancreatic resection. Over the last three decades, significant improvements have been made in the conditions and procedures related to pancreatic surgery, resulting in mortality rates lower than 5%. However, it is important to note that the morbidity in pancreatic surgery remains r latively high, with a percentage range of 30–60%. Pre-operative malnutrition is considered to be an independent risk factor for post-operative complications in pancreatic surgery, such as impaired wound healing, higher infection rates, prolonged hospital stay, hospital readmission, poor prognosis, and increased morbidity and mortality. Regarding the post-operative period, it is crucial to provide the best possible management of gastrointestinal dysfunction and to handle the consequences of alterations in food digestion and nutrient absorption for those undergoing pancreatic surgery. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) suggests that early oral feeding should be the preferred way to initiate nourishing surgical patients as it is associated with lower rates of complications. However, there is ongoing debate about the optimal post-operative feeding approach. Several studies have shown that enteral nutrition is associated with a shorter time to recovery, superior clinical outcomes and biomarkers. On the other hand, recent data suggest that nutritional goals are better achieved with parenteral feeding, either exclusively or as a supplement. The current review highlights recommendations from existing evidence, including nutritional screening and assessment and pre/post-operative nutrition support fundamentals to improve patient outcomes. Key areas for improvement and opportunities to enhance guideline implementation are also highlighted.

Malnutrition and sarcopenia are prevalent in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Pre-treatment sarcopenia and adverse oncological outcomes in this population are well described. The impact of myosteatosis and post-treatment sarcopenia is less well known. Patients with HNSCC (n = 125) undergoing chemoradiotherapy, radiotherapy alone and/or surgery were assessed for sarcopenia and myosteatosis, using cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) imaging at the third lumbar (L3) vertebra, at baseline and 3 months post-treatment. Outcomes were overall survival (OS) at 12 months and 5 years post-treatment. One hundred and one participants had a CT scan evaluable at one or two time points, of which sixty-seven (66 %) participants were sarcopenic on at least one time point. Reduced muscle attenuation affected 93 % (n = 92) pre-treatment compared with 97 % (n = 90) post-treatment. Five-year OS favoured those without post-treatment sarcopenia (hazard ratio, HR 0·37, 95 % CI 0·16, 0·88, P = 0·06) and those without both post-treatment myosteatosis and sarcopenia (HR 0·33, 95 % CI 0·13, 0·83, P = 0·06). Overall, rates of myosteatosis were high at both pre- and post-treatment time points. Post-treatment sarcopenia was associated with worse 5-year OS, as was post-treatment sarcopenia in those who had myosteatosis. Post-treatment sarcopenia should be evaluated as an independent risk factor for decreased long-term survival post-treatment containing radiotherapy (RT) for HNSCC.

Nutrition and gastrointestinal cancer are inextricably linked. The metabolic effects of cancer along with changes in dietary intake, the development of cancer cachexia and the presence of sarcopenia can influence changes in body composition. These have a negative impact on quality of life and tolerance to cancer treatment. Treatment for cancer presents some significant nutritional challenges as nutrition impact symptoms may develop, be exacerbated by treatment and may contribute to a worsening in nutritional status. Nutrition screening and assessment should be an integral part of holistic patient care. The provision of appropriate, evidence-based dietary advice should occur before, during and after cancer treatment. Appropriate and timely methods of nutritional support across the spectrum of gastrointestinal cancer are needed to ensure that people are adequately supported during courses of treatment that can span weeks and months. These can range from standard approaches of supplementing oral intake to complex interventions such as managing high output intestinal stomas. The gastrointestinal tract is particularly susceptible to impact from systemic anti-cancer treatments and radiotherapy. Gastrointestinal late effects of cancer treatment are now recognised to present particular challenges in terms of both medical and nutritional management. These late effects have a significant impact on the individual and their quality of life in addition to implications for the health service. Dietary intake following cancer treatment has an impact on quality of life and future research may demonstrate its influence on the risk of recurrence of gastrointestinal cancer.

Nutrition support involves the use of oral supplements, enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition. These interventions are considered when oral intake alone fails to meet nutritional requirements. Special diets and oral supplements are usually the first approach to managing malnutrition; however, their role becomes limited when oral intake is restricted or if swallowing is unsafe. Enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition are alternative means of providing nutrition support for this select group of patients. Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feeding was introduced into clinical practice in 1980. It describes a feeding tube placed directly into the stomach under endoscopic guidance. It is an established means of providing enteral nutrition to those who have functionally normal gastrointestinal tracts, but who cannot meet their nutritional requirements due to inadequate oral intake. The intervention is usually reserved when nutritional intake is likely to be inadequate for more than 4–6 weeks. Although the benefits of PEG have been shown for a select group of patients, there currently exists concerns about the increasing frequency of this intervention, and also uncertainty about the long-term benefits for certain patients. The 2004 UK National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death report emphasised this concern, with almost a fifth of PEG being undertaken for futile indications that negatively influenced morbidity and mortality. The present review paper discusses the indications for, controversies surrounding and complications of gastrostomy feeding and provides practical advice on optimising patient selection for this intervention.

Malnutrition can adversely affect physical and psychological function, influencing both morbidity and mortality. Despite the prevalence of malnutrition and its associated health and economic costs, malnutrition remains under-detected and under-treated in differing healthcare settings. For a subgroup of malnourished individuals, a gastrostomy (a feeding tube placed directly into the stomach) may be required to provide long-term nutritional support. In this review we explore the spectrum and consequences of malnutrition in differing healthcare settings. We then specifically review gastrostomies as a method of providing nutritional support. The review highlights the origins of gastrostomies, and discusses how endoscopic and radiological advances have culminated in an increased demand and placement of gastrostomy feeding tubes. Several studies have raised concerns about the benefits derived following this intervention and also about the patients selected to undergo this procedure. These studies are discussed in detail in this review, alongside suggestions for future research to help better delineate those who will benefit most from this intervention, and improve understanding about how gastrostomies influence nutritional outcomes.

Nutrition support is an important part of care management in critically ill patients, not only to prevent and treat malnutrition but also it has a significant impact on recovery from illness and overall outcome. There is little information available about present nutritional support practice for patients in intensive care units (ICU) in the UK. This survey was designed to evaluate the present nutrition support practice in ICU and high dependency units (HDU) in England. Data were gathered by a 72 h phone survey from 245 ICU and HDU in 196 hospitals in England. A questionnaire was completed over the telephone, including general information, nutrition support and teams involved in the nutrition management in the ICU. Of 1286 total patients in the ICU, 703 (54·6 %) were receiving nasogastric feeding, two (1·5 %) were receiving feeding via a percutaneous endoscopically placed gastrostomy tube and two (1·5 %) were receiving nasojejunal feeding. One hundred and forty-seven (11·4 %) patients were on parenteral feeding during the study period. A nutrition support team was not available in 158 (83·1 %) ICU and there was no dietitian or specialist nutrition nurse to cover ICU in nine (4·7 %) hospitals. In conclusion, the present survey reported an increased trend in usage of enteral feeding in ICU in England, and a reduction in the use of parenteral nutrition compared with previous surveys. However, we are still far from integrating nutrition into care management in the ICU.

This review details the practicalities of providing nutrition support to obese patients who experience complications following bariatric surgery and highlights some of the nutritional challenges encountered by this group of patients. Bariatric surgery to treat morbid obesity has significantly increased internationally over the past decade with hospital admissions rising annually. The gastric bypass is currently the most commonly performed procedure. The complication rate can be up to 16%, with a considerable proportion having nutritional implications. The treatment can involve avoidance of oral diet and nutrition support, i.e. enteral or parenteral nutrition. Opposition to nutrition support can be encountered. It is useful to clarify the aims of nutrition support, these being: the avoidance of overfeeding and its consequences, preservation of lean body mass and promotion of healing. Evidence suggests that hypoenergic nutrition is not harmful and may actually be beneficial. There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimum method to predict the nutritional requirements in the obese acutely unwell patient. The literature suggests that the predicted equations are fairly accurate compared to measured energy expenditure in free living obese patients before and after bariatric surgery. However, these findings cannot be directly applied to those obese patients experiencing complications of bariatric surgery, who will be acutely unwell exhibiting inflammatory response. It is therefore necessary to refer to the literature on energy expenditure in hospitalized obese patients, to help guide practice. More research examining the energy and protein requirements of obese patients needing nutrition support following bariatric surgery is urgently required.

Nutritional support of patients with HIV or acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has many similarities to other disease states in that the same nutritional products and techniques are used. Some patients with HIV, and many with AIDS without secondary infection, experience a metabolic milieu similar to patients with cancer cachexia. In providing dietary counselling to the HIV patient, we encounter many of the obstacles that must be overcome to improve nutrition in cancer: anorexia, gastrointestinal discomfort, lethargy, and poor nutrient utilization, which limit the ability for nutritional repletion. When a secondary infection is superimposed on HIV, patients resemble more highly catabolic trauma patients or patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), where, despite aggressive efforts to feed, there is usually a net nitrogen wasting leading to the more rapid development of cachexia. However, even in this setting, feeding will limit substantially net catabolism when compared to total starvation. Because the nutritional needs of HIV patients vary greatly, individual strategies have to be designed as the patient moves through the stages of disease. Patients are generally able to consume adequate nutrition either as regular food or dietary supplements during the latency period of viral replication. Once secondary infections become prevalent, artificial diets administered by tube or by vein may be required during the period of active secondary infections, with dietary supplements often helpful during more quiescent periods. Patients with HIV are among the most challenging for clinicians providing nutritional support. Knowledge from treatment of patients with other diseases may be useful, but more data must be gathered on the unique aspects of aetiology and treatment of the anorexia, malabsorption, and ultimate wasting associated with AIDS.

In order to determine whether surrogate markers predict clinical outcome, randomized controlled trials (RCT) of nutrition support v. no nutrition support that have reported at least one clinical outcome (mortality, infections, total complications, or duration of hospitalization) and at least one nutritional outcome (energy or protein intake, weight gain, N balance, albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, three anthropometric measures, skin testing, lymphocyte count) were assessed for concordance. If changes in nutritional markers predict clinical outcome, changes in both outcomes should go in the same direction. Concordance is defined as both outcomes changing in the same direction or both outcomes showing no difference. Discordance is defined as one outcome changing and the other not (partial) or both outcomes changing in opposite directions (complete). Ninety-nine RCT were identified, of which most were underpowered to see statistically significant changes, especially in clinical outcomes. Thus, the results were analysed only in relation to the direction of the respective changes in outcomes. Forty-eight comparisons (4×12) were made. The rates of concordance were ≤50% in forty-one of forty-eight comparisons; the rate was never >75%. A complete discordance rate of ≥25% was present in forty-three (≥50% in thirteen) of the forty-eight comparisons. The discordance was usually a result of the nutritional outcome being better than the clinical outcome. Changes in nutritional markers do not predict clinical outcomes. Before adopting any surrogate marker as an end point for a clinical trial, it has to be known that improving it will result in patient benefit.

Nutritional support in the elderly not only co-operates inpharmacological treatment but also very often is a primary therapy for their health. The type of artificial nutrition (AN) to use will depend on the present illness and the previous health record. Due to the fact that enteral feeding (EF) is less expensive and aggressive we should use EF whenever possible, leaving parenteral nutrition (PN) for specific situations where EF should not be used. AN, if properly prescribed, formulated, administered and monitored, is safe as long as qualified personnel are trained in its use. Combined AN (oral, enteral and parenteral) allows a step-by-step improvement that could lead to final oral feeding. Finally, while it is true that age should not be considered in isolation as a contraindication for AN, we should be aware that, in final life stages, oral feeding can be the only satisfaction left for the elderly.