Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 29, 2025

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Enteral immunonutrition versus enteral nutrition for patients undergoing esophagectomy: a randomized controlled trial
Xiao-Kun Li1, Zhuang-Zhuang Cong2, Wen-Jie Wu3
1Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Jingling Hospital, Medicine School of Southeast University, Nanjing, China.
Background:
In recent years, immunonutrition has been introduced and proposed to have a positive modulatory effect on inflammatory and immune responses and gut function for surgical patients, especially for patients undergoing gastrointestinal cancer resection. We conducted this parallel-group, randomized and double-blind clinical controlled trial to investigate the efficacy of perioperative enteral immunonutrition (EIN) on clinical and immunological outcomes of patients undergoing esophageal resection.
Methods:
A randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, clinical trial was conducted between December 1, 2017 and March 1, 2018. This study enrolled 120 patients with esophageal cancer. And 112 patients were divided into two groups randomly: EIN group and enteral nutrition (EN) group. The EIN contained extra immunonutritional substrates, including a consistent combination of arginine, RNA and the omega-3 fatty acids compared with EN. Immune indicators were measured at preoperative day 7, postoperative day (POD) 1, 3, 7 and post-discharge day (PDD) 30.
Results:
There were 56 participants randomized to each group. Finally, 53 patients in EIN and 50 patients in EN were analyzed. Immune indicator was the primary outcome in this study. EIN yielded a significantly lower rate of CD8/CD3 (%) at POD 3 compared with EN group (P=0.005). The rate of CD4/CD8 (%) in EIN group was higher than that in EN group at POD3 (P=0.004). The serum levels of IgM at POD 3 and 7 were significantly higher in EN group compared with EIN group (P=0.025 and P=0.009, respectively). The rate of NK (%) and the serum level of IgA were significantly higher in EIN group compared with EN group at PDD 30 (P=0.022 and P=0.041, respectively). No significant differences were found in 2-year progressionfree survival and overall survival.
Conclusions:
Immunonutrition is a safe and feasible nutritional treatment, which has a positive modulatory impact on immune responses after esophagectomy. Although no significant difference was found in clinical and survival outcomes between EIN and EN groups, immunonutrition could still have a positive effect on immunological function of patients undergoing esophagectomy.
Related Concept Videos
Enteral Nutrition I: Orogastric and Nasogastric Feeding
Orogastric (OG) and nasogastric (NG) feeding are two standard methods used for enteral nutrition. Enteral nutrition is often preferred over...
Enteral Nutrition II: Nasointestinal and Gastrostomy Feeding
Nasointestinal Feeding
Nasointestinal feeding involves placing a tube...
Inflammatory Bowel Disease III: Diagnostic Studies and Management I-Nutritional Therapy
Diagnostic studies
A colonoscopy is the definitive screening test, distinguishing ulcerative colitis from other colon diseases with similar symptoms. During a colonoscopy test, inflamed mucosa with exudate ulcerations can be observed, and biopsies are taken to determine the histologic characteristics of the...
Esophageal Strictures-II: Clinical Features and Management
Healthcare providers should gather a comprehensive medical history and conduct a physical examination for diagnosis. If esophageal stricture is...
Esophageal Varices-II: Clinical Features and Management
In the initial assessment, a thorough review of the patient's medical history is vital to identify risk factors such as liver disease, alcohol...
Barrett Esophagus-II: Clinical Manifestations and Management
To diagnose Barrett's esophagus, healthcare providers often recommend an endoscopy for those showing symptoms of acid reflux. The procedure...

