Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

Purpose: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of enteral versus parenteral feeding in patients after esophagectomy. Methods: This a prospective cohort study of post-esophagectomy intensive care unit (ICU) patients over 12 months in the National Cancer Institute, Malaysia. Early enteral feeding followed the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, and parenteral nutrition (PN) was considered if there was a risk for conduit ischemia. It compared the effectiveness of enteral versus PN following esophagectomy, and assessed the correlations between biochemical nutritional markers and hospital lengths of stay or ventilation days. Results: It included two cohorts receiving PN (n=11) or enteral nutrition (EN) (n=11) following elective esophagectomy. Preoperative weight, body mass index, and Subjective Global Assessment were higher in the EN group (P=0.033, P=0.021, P=0.031, respectively). Nutritional interruption occurred more frequently in the EN group (63.7%) compared to the PN group (P=0.001). Mean levels of energy and protein received were 93.1 kcal/kg and 1.4 g/kg for PN versus 92.4 kcal/kg and 1.2 g/kg for EN (P=0.893, P=0.036). The median lengths of ICU stay (P=0.688) and postoperative stay (P=0.947) between groups showed no significant difference. In addition, 30-day mortality (P=0.214) and other postoperative complications (P>0.05) were comparable in the two groups. Conclusion Early initiation of supplementary PN due to significant interruption in EN led to higher protein intake compared to the EN group. However, there were no significant differences in postoperative outcomes, including 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation days. PN ensures adequate nutritional intake, especially in terms of protein delivery, without adversely affecting postoperative recovery and clinical outcomes.

BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN BARIATRIC SURGERY AND CONTINUOUS MULTIDISCIPLINARY CARE We read with great interest the case report by Cheah et al. on dumping syndrome in a woman who became pregnant shortly after bariatric surgery.1 e recently launched clinical practice guideline (CPG) has declared obesity as a complex and chronic disease with heterogeneous presentation.2 us, personalised and continuous care is essential for people living with obesity (PLwO) even after bariatric surgery