Malnutrition and refeeding syndrome prevention in head and neck cancer patients: from theory to clinical application.

PURPOSE: The goal of this review is to raise awareness about refeeding syndrome (RFS) and to give a comprehensive presentation of recent guidelines and latest scientific data about nutritional management among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients while focusing on RFS prevention. METHODS: A review of literature for nutritional assessment and RFS management was conducted. Electronic searches of Medline, Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases for articles published in peer-reviewed journals were conducted from February to September 2017 using the keywords: "nutrition assessment", "head and neck cancer", "refeeding syndrome" and "guidelines". Articles, reviews, book references as well as national and international guidelines in English and French were included. RESULTS: The prevalence of malnutrition is high in HNC patients and a large number of them will need artificial nutritional support or refeeding intervention. RFS is characterized by fluid and electrolyte imbalance associated with clinical manifestations induced by rapid refeeding after a period of malnutrition or starvation. Regarding risk factors for malnutrition and RFS, HNC patients are particularly vulnerable. However, RFS remains unrecognized among head and neck surgeons and medical teams. Practical data are summarized to help organizing nutritional assessment and refeeding interventions. It also summarizes preventive measures to reduce RFS incidence and morbidity in HNC population. CONCLUSION: Nutritional assessment and early refeeding interventions are crucial for HNC patients care. As prevention is the key for RFS management, early identification of patients with high risks is crucial and successful nutritional management requires a multidisciplinary approach.

Malnutrition after bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a rare but severe complication following obesity surgery. Our objective was to analyze these cases of malnutrition and their management at the Grenoble University Hospital. METHODS: Retrospective data between 2006 to 2016 was analyzed from Department of Medical Information, Severe Obesity Outcome Network, and register of the Department of Artificial Nutrition. Data collected concerned age, sex, anthropometric data, surgical procedures and history of obesity surgery, initial surgical follow-up, delay from surgery, nutritional characteristics, nutritional and surgical management, follow-up and outcomes. RESULTS: Six patients had protein malnutrition after obesity surgery. Five patients (N.=5/6 83%) were initially operated on in other establishments. Only 1 patient in the cohort of 484 patients operated at on our institution was suffering from malnutrition (N.=1/484, 0.2%). All patients showed an excess weight loss of over 100%. Albumin level averaged 24.8 g/L at time of diagnosis. Patients were mainly operated on for an omega bypass (N.=4/6, 66%). Delay of malnutrition was 17.25 months in this category of patients whereas it was 84 months in patients having been operated on by another intervention. 3 patients (i.e. 50%) had chronic kidney disease when their initial surgery was performed. Two patients presented acute idiopathic pancreatitis following obesity surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are at risk of malnutrition, especially after omega bypass and in patients with chronic kidney disease. Occurrence of acute pancreatitis is an alert to the risk of malnutrition.