Background: Energy-dense formulae are often provided to critically ill patients with enteral feed intolerance with the aim of increasing energy delivery, yet the effect on gastric emptying is unknown. The rate of gastric emptying of a standard compared with an energy-dense formula was quantified in critically ill patients. Methods: Mechanically ventilated adults were randomized to receive radiolabeled intragastric infusions of 200 mL standard (1 kcal/mL) or 100 mL energy-dense (2 kcal/mL) enteral formulae on consecutive days in this noninferiority, blinded, crossover trial. The primary outcome was scintigraphic measurement of gastric retention (percentage at 120 minutes). Other measures included area under the curve (AUC) for gastric retention and intestinal energy delivery (calculated from gastric retention of formulae over time), blood glucose (peak and AUC), and intestinal glucose absorption (using 3-O-methyl-D-gluco-pyranose [3-OMG] concentrations). Comparisons were undertaken using paired mixedeffects models. Data presented are mean ± SE. Results: Eighteen patients were studied (male/female, 14:4; age, 55.2 ± 5.3 years). Gastric retention at 120 minutes was greater with the energy-dense formula (standard, 17.0 ± 5.9 vs energy-dense, 32.5 ± 7.1; difference, 12.7% [90% confidence interval, 0.8%-30.1%]). Energy delivery (AUC 120 , 13,038 ± 1119 vs 9763 ± 1346 kcal/120 minutes; P = 0.057), glucose control (peak glucose, 10.1 ± 0.3 vs 9.7 ± 0.3 mmol/L, P = 0.362; and glucose AUC 120 8.7 ± 0.3 vs 8.5 ± 0.3 mmol/L.120 minutes, P = 0.661), and absorption (3-OMG AUC 120 , 38.5 ± 4.0 vs 35.7 ± 4.0 mmol/L.120 minutes; P = .508) were not improved with the energy-dense formula. Conclusion: In critical illness, administration of an energy-dense formula does not reduce gastric retention, increase energy delivery to the small intestine, or improve glucose absorption or glucose control; instead, there is a signal for delayed gastric emptying.
Purpose Excellent metabolic improvement following one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) remains compromised by the risk of esophageal bile reflux and theoretical carcinogenic potential. No ‘gold standard’ investigation exists for esophageal bile reflux, with diverse methods employed in the few studies evaluating it post-obesity surgery. As such, data on the incidence and severity of esophageal bile reflux is limited, with comparative studies lacking. This study aims to use specifically tailored biliary scintigraphy and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy protocols to evaluate esophageal bile reflux after OAGB, sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Methods Fifty-eight participants underwent OAGB (20), SG (15) or RYGB (23) between November 2018 and July 2020. Pre-operative reflux symptom assessment and gastroscopy were performed and repeated post-operatively at 6 months along with biliary scintigraphy. Results Gastric reflux of bile was identified by biliary scintigraphy in 14 OAGB (70%), one RYGB (5%) and four SG participants (31%), with a mean of 2.9% (SD 1.5) reflux (% of total radioactivity). One participant (OAGB) demonstrated esophageal bile reflux. De novo macro- or microscopic gastroesophagitis occurred in 11 OAGB (58%), 8 SG (57%) and 7 RYGB (30%) participants. Thirteen participants had worsened reflux symptoms post-operatively (OAGB, 4; SG, 7; RYGB, 2). Scintigraphic esophageal bile reflux bore no statistical association with de novo gastroesophagitis or reflux symptoms. Conclusion Despite high incidence of gastric bile reflux post-OAGB, esophageal bile reflux is rare. With scarce literature of tumour development post-OAGB, frequent low-volume gastric bile reflux likely bears little clinical consequence; however, longer-term studies are needed. Clinical Trial Registry Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number ACTRN12618000806268. Graphical abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.