A more physiological feeding process in ICU

Abstract

Introduction and objectives:The goal of this study is to determine whether the application of semi-solid nutrients could increase the efficiency of the enteral nutrition (EN), which was measured daily by administered volume of nutrition/prescribed volume of nutrition.Methods:A total of 28 subjects were finally enrolled in the study and randomized to receive either intermittent feeding (IF) or intermittent feeding with semi-solid nutrients (IS). Three major parameters concerning EN were evaluated in this study: the daily dosage prescribed by doctor, the actual dosage received by subjects, and the acute complications such as diarrhea, vomiting, regurgitation, bowel distension, and lung infection.Results:There were no statistical differences in NRS-2002, and acute gastrointestinal injury between both groups. The IS group (0.98 ± 0.06, P < .01) could receive higher percentage of daily prescribed calories compared to IF (0.73 ± 0.15). The total caloric intake during the first 3 days was higher in IS (2589.29 ± 844.02 vs. 1685.71 ± 388.00, P < .01). The incidence of feeding intolerance (FI) was lower in the IS group (2/14) compared with IF (8/14). However, semi-solid nutrients did not decrease the length of stay, lung infection, or 30-day mortality. Similarly, there was no difference in glycemic variability and stress hyperglycemia.Conclusions:In our cohort of critically ill subjects, the efficiency of the EN was increased by IS, which might be related to the improvement of FI (NCT03017079).

Clinical effects and safety of semi-solid feeds in tube-fed patients: a meta-analysis and systematic review

“…Twenty-eight articles were excluded after reading the full text based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, eight RCTs ( 11 – 18 ) were included in this meta-analysis ( Figure 1 ).…”