Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kagansky, M.
Right arrow Articles by Rimon, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kagansky, M.
Right arrow Articles by Rimon, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Techniques, Materials, Devices

Is There a Difference in Metabolic Outcome Between Different Enteral Formulas?

Michael Kagansky, MD and Ephraim Rimon, MD

From the Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel

Correspondence: Ephraim Rimon, The Hebrew University and Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, Geriatric Department E, F, POB 48, Gedera, Israel 70750. Electronic mail may be sent to efraim_r{at}clalit.org.il.

Background: Despite appropriate enteral nutrition, many elderly patients do not reach a good metabolic outcome. Two nutrition formulas are commonly used in Israel with no evidence-based medicine to indicate preference of one over the other. Methods: We describe a 2-month observational study of patients fed by 1 of the 2 formulas. The first (Osmolite, Abbott Company, Abbott Park, IL) is without fiber, and the second (Easy Fiber, Easyline Company Givataim, Israel) in addition to containing fiber is also richer in protein, vitamins, and minerals. The formula was selected by the primary care physician before enrollment in the study and was not influenced by the investigators. Routine blood tests as well as body weight were monitored at the start of enteral feeding and during the 2 months following as part of the regular follow-up. Results: Fifty-seven patients were fed with the regular formula and 77 with the enriched one. No statistically significant differences were noted between the groups during the follow-up period, in body weight, cholesterol levels, total lymphocyte count, renal function tests, or electrolyte balance. However, in the enriched formula group there was a significant decrease in glucose (p < .05), and increase in albumin (p < .05) and hemoglobin (p = .01) levels. Conclusions: Enteral feeding with enriched formula appears to improve albumin and hemoglobin levels as well as diabetic control, thus it may be more appropriate than the nonfiber diet for use in long-term care patients.

Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, Vol. 31, No. 4, 320-323 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0148607107031004320
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Nutr Clin PractHome page
Y. Chen and S. J. Peterson
Enteral Nutrition Formulas: Which Formula Is Right for Your Adult Patient?
Nutr Clin Pract, June 1, 2009; 24(3): 344 - 355.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]