METHODS: This is a pragmatic randomized control trial study where elective admitted patients will be randomly divided into the intervention (SS) or control (NN) group. All data will be collected during a face-to-face interview, anthropometric measurement, blood sampling (albumin, white blood count, hemoglobin, and c-reactive protein), handgrip strength, and postoperative complications. Group SS will be receiving a tailored lifestyle and intensively supplemented with oral nutrition support as compared to Group NN that will receive standard medical care. The primary outcome for this study is the length of stay in the hospital. Additional outcome measures are changes in biochemical profile and nutritional and functional status. The effects of intervention between groups on the outcome parameters will be analyzed by using the SPSS General Linear Model (GLM) for the repeated measure procedure.
DISCUSSION: The intervention implemented in this study will serve as baseline data in providing appropriate nutritional management in patients undergoing gastrointestinal and oncological surgery.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) NCT04347772 . Registered on 20 November 2019.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PubMed databases through to December 2013 using the terms "percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy", "gastrostomy", "PEG", "nasogastric", "nasogastric tube", "nasogastric feeding" and "intubation". We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs which compared PEG with NG feeding in individuals with non-stroke dysphagia.
RESULTS: 9 studies involving 847 participants were included in the final analysis, including two randomized trials. Pooled analysis indicated no significant difference in the risk of pneumonia [relative risk (RR) = 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.87-1.60] and overall complications [relative risk (RR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63-1.02] between PEG and NG feeding. A meta-analysis was not possible for mortality and nutritional outcomes, but three studies suggested improved mortality outcomes with PEG feeding while two out of three studies reported PEG feeding to be better from a nutritional perspective.
CONCLUSIONS: Firm conclusions could not be derived on whether PEG feeding is beneficial over NG feeding in older persons with non-stroke dysphagia, as previously published literature were unclear or had a high risk of bias. A well-designed and adequately powered RCT, which includes carer strain and quality of life as outcome measures is therefore urgently needed.