BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of an enteral tube feeding protocol on caloric and protein delivery to intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: This prospective study consisted of 2 phases: before and after the implementation on an enteral-feeding protocol. The following data were collected: demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, caloric and protein requirements, the location of the feeding tube tip, and prokinetic agents use. The primary endpoint was caloric and protein intake as a percentage of the requirement. Secondary endpoints were gastric residuals >150 mL, vomiting episodes, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, mechanical ventilation duration, and ICU and hospital mortality. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the control (n = 100) and protocol groups (n = 103) in baseline characteristics. The protocol was associated with significant improvement in the 7-day average of caloric intake/requirement (53.9 +/- 2.3% vs 64.5 +/- 2.2%, p = .001) and protein intake/requirement (56.7 +/- 2.6% vs 67.4% +/- 2.7%, p = .005). Caloric and protein intake improved whether the patient was receiving prokinetic agent or not. There was a trend toward lower gastric residual volumes and vomiting episodes in the protocol group. Patients receiving gastric feeding showed significant improvement in caloric intake to levels comparable to patients with postpyloric feeding. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral tube feeding protocol is effective in improving feeding delivery in ICU patients independent of prokinetic agent use. Protocol for enteral tube feeding should be considered in the management of ICU patients, given the positive impact of this nonpharmacologic, non-interventional tool.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of an enteral tube feeding protocol on caloric and protein delivery to intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: This prospective study consisted of 2 phases: before and after the implementation on an enteral-feeding protocol. The following data were collected: demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, caloric and protein requirements, the location of the feeding tube tip, and prokinetic agents use. The primary endpoint was caloric and protein intake as a percentage of the requirement. Secondary endpoints were gastric residuals >150 mL, vomiting episodes, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, mechanical ventilation duration, and ICU and hospital mortality. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the control (n = 100) and protocol groups (n = 103) in baseline characteristics. The protocol was associated with significant improvement in the 7-day average of caloric intake/requirement (53.9 +/- 2.3% vs 64.5 +/- 2.2%, p = .001) and protein intake/requirement (56.7 +/- 2.6% vs 67.4% +/- 2.7%, p = .005). Caloric and protein intake improved whether the patient was receiving prokinetic agent or not. There was a trend toward lower gastric residual volumes and vomiting episodes in the protocol group. Patients receiving gastric feeding showed significant improvement in caloric intake to levels comparable to patients with postpyloric feeding. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral tube feeding protocol is effective in improving feeding delivery in ICU patients independent of prokinetic agent use. Protocol for enteral tube feeding should be considered in the management of ICU patients, given the positive impact of this nonpharmacologic, non-interventional tool.