|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Comparison of Gastrointestinal Tolerance to Two Enteral Feeding Protocols in Critically III Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial
Jaime C. Pinilla, MD
Department of Surgery, Critical Care Medecine Division, Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada, pinillaj{at}duke.usask.ca
John Samphire, MD
Department of Surgery, Critical Care Medecine Division, Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Christopher Arnold, PDt
Nutrition Support Service, Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Liyan Liu, PhD
Departement of Epidemology and Community Medicine, Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Brenda Thiessen, BSP MSc
Department of Pharmaceutical Services, Royal University Hospital, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Background : The purpose of this study was to compare gastrointestinal tolerance to two enteral feeding protocols in critically ill patients. Methods: A prospective, randomized controlled trial, that involved 96 consecutive patients expected to stay in the intensive care unit for  3 days and who had no contraindications to enteral feeding. The patients were randomized to either the current protocol (group I; gastric residual volume threshold, 150 mL, optional prokinetic) or proposed feeding protocol (group II; gastric residual volume threshold 250 mL, mandatory prokinetic). Gastrointestinal intolerance was recorded as episodes of high gastric residual volume, emesis, or diarrhea. The time to reach the goal rate of feeding and the percentage of nutritional requirements received during the study period were also recorded. Results: Nineteen of 36 patients (19/36 = 0.53) in group I had one or more episodes of high gastric residual volume, compared with 10 of 44 patients (10/44 = 0.23) in group II (p < .005). There was no statistical difference between the two protocols with regards to emesis, diarrhea, or the total episodes of intolerance. The patients in group II reached their goal rates on average in 15 hours and received 76% of their nutritional requirements, compared with 22 hours and 70% in group I; however, these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: The incidence of enteral feeding intolerance was reduced by using a gastric residual volume of 250 mL along with the mandatory use of prokinetics. The study showed a trend of improved enteral nutrition provision and reduced the time to reach the goal rate in group II. These improvements support the adoption of the proposed feeding protocol for critically ill patients. (journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 25:81-86, 2001)
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 25, No. 2,
81-86 (2001)
DOI: 10.1177/014860710102500281
 CiteULike  Complore  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
S. A. McClave, R. G. Martindale, V. W. Vanek, M. McCarthy, P. Roberts, B. Taylor, J. B. Ochoa, L. Napolitano, G. Cresci, the A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors, et al.
Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient:: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.)
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
May 1, 2009;
33(3):
277 - 316.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. W. Drover
Nutritional Support in the Critically Ill Patient
ACCP Crit Care Med Brd Rev,
January 1, 2009;
20(0):
403 - 412.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. A. Metheny, L. Schallom, D. A. Oliver, and R. E. Clouse
Gastric Residual Volume and Aspiration in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Gastric Feedings
Am. J. Crit. Care.,
November 1, 2008;
17(6):
512 - 519.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. M. Bourgault, L. Ipe, J. Weaver, S. Swartz, and P. J. O'Dea
Development of Evidence-Based Guidelines and Critical Care Nurses ' Knowledge of Enteral Feeding
Crit. Care Nurse,
August 1, 2007;
27(4):
17 - 29.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. A. Metheny
Preventing respiratory complications of tube feedings: evidence-based practice.
Am. J. Crit. Care.,
July 1, 2006;
15(4):
360 - 369.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. A. Metheny, J. Stewart, G. Nuetzel, D. Oliver, and R. E. Clouse
Effect of Feeding-Tube Properties on Residual Volume Measurements in Tube-Fed Patients
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
May 1, 2005;
29(3):
192 - 197.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. L. Mackenzie, D. A. Zygun, B. L. Whitmore, C. J. Doig, and S. M. Hameed
Implementation of a Nutrition Support Protocol Increases the Proportion of Mechanically Ventilated Patients Reaching Enteral Nutrition Targets in the Adult Intensive Care Unit
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
March 1, 2005;
29(2):
74 - 80.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Weckwerth
Monitoring Enteral Nutrition Support Tolerance in Infants and Children
Nutr Clin Pract,
October 1, 2004;
19(5):
496 - 503.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. R. Roberts, D. A. Kennerly, D. Keane, and C. George
Nutrition Support in the Intensive Care: Unit Adequacy, Timeliness, and Outcomes
Crit. Care Nurse,
December 1, 2003;
23(6):
49 - 57.
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Horn and W. Chaboyer
Gastric Feeding in Critically Ill Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Am. J. Crit. Care.,
September 1, 2003;
12(5):
461 - 468.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. J. Lebak, D. Z. Bliss, K. Savik, and K. M. Patten-Marsh
What's New on Defining Diarrhea in Tube-Feeding Studies?
Clin Nurs Res,
May 1, 2003;
12(2):
174 - 204.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. A. McClave and H. L. Snider
Clinical Use of Gastric Residual Volumes as a Monitor for Patients on Enteral Tube Feeding
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
November 1, 2002;
26(6_suppl):
S43 - S50.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Spain
When Is the Seriously III Patient Ready to Be Fed?
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
November 1, 2002;
26(6_suppl):
S62 - S68.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. O. Rogers Jr
Comments on "Comparison of Gastrointestinal Tolerance to Two Feeding Protocols in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial"
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr,
May 1, 2001;
25(3):
166 - 167.
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
