Cochrane Summariesbeta

Independent high-quality evidence for health care decision making

Does the timing and route of nutritional support have an effect on survival and disability in head-injured patients?

Perel P, Yanagawa T, Bunn F, Roberts IG, Wentz R
Published Online: 
October 8, 2008

After a moderate or severe head injury, patients use more energy as their body's metabolism is working at a greater rate. This increases the body's nutritional requirements which may lead to malnutrition and other complications.

Patients are often unable to meet the increased requirements by oral feeding alone, even if oral feeding is possible, therefore other methods are required. However, the method and timing of nutritional support can differ. Some can be started immediately following head injury but others may be delayed until the digestive system is found to be functioning.

Enteral nutrition is provided by inserting a feeding tube via the nose or mouth, into the stomach or small intestine. The feeding tube delivers a liquid formula containing the required nutrients. Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) provides an alternative to conventional enteral feeding. Parenteral nutrition means feeding someone via their blood stream (intravenously). Total parenteral nutrition (TPN) means that a patient is only fed intravenously. This method may carry risks of infectious complications.

It is unclear whether the timing and route of the administration of nutrition has an effect on mortality and morbidity of head-injured patients. The authors of this a systematic review searched for all high quality trials to determine the best timing (early or delayed), and route (enteral or parental) of nutritional support following head injury.

The authors identified 11 eligible trials that investigated the timing and route of nutritional support in head-injured patients. These trials included a total of 534 patients. However, of the many of the trials had methodological weaknesses.

The authors found that early feeding may be associated with fewer infections and a trend towards better outcomes in terms of survival and disability. However, the trials were small so any improvements detected were on a small scale. Also the focus of many of the trials was on nutritional outcomes, and many did not report the effect on death and disability. The authors were unable to obtain data for death and disability for all of the included trials so they feel there may be a possibility of bias. Further trials of nutritional support following head injury are required. These trials should report death and disability as well nutritional outcomes. They should also be large enough to detect clinically important treatment effects.

Find the research