Literature DB >> 24722665

Enteral nutrition: what the dietitian prescribes is not what the burn patient gets!

Tess Sudenis1, Kathryn Hall, Robert Cartotto.   

Abstract

Enteral nutrition (EN) is commonly interrupted in burn patients for many reasons, which leads to discrepancies between prescribed and actual EN delivery. The magnitude and origin of these discrepancies have never been well documented among burn patients. The purpose of this study was to examine differences between prescribed and actual EN delivery and to identify the specific causes of EN interruption and to quantify these. Retrospective review of patients treated between June 6, 2009 and June 6, 2012 at an adult regional American Burn Association-verified burn center who had ≥10% TBSA burns and who were prescribed EN for at least 24 hours. On postburn days (PBD) 0 to 14 the daily volume of EN prescribed by the dietitian was compared with the actual volume received by the patient. The cause and duration of interruptions to EN delivery were recorded. A total of 90 subjects, [mean (± SD) age 47 ± 18 years, 32% female, median %TBSA burn size 28, median %TBSA full-thickness burn size 11, and a 54% incidence of inhalation injury], were studied. EN was initiated at a median of 9.5 hours after burn center admission. Received calories were significantly less than prescribed calories on every study day. The median daily caloric deficit ranged between 172 and 930 kcal. The median percent of prescribed calories received each day ranged from 19% on PBD 0 to 91% on PBD 14. The mean (± SD) total duration of EN interruption was 8.9 ± 3.0 hours per day. Gradually increasing the feed rate to reach the prescribed EN goal rate ("ramping-in") was the most common cause of a discrepancy between prescribed and actual EN delivery, accounting for 35% of total discrepancy time. Interruptions for surgery accounted for 24% of total discrepancy time. Other causes of discrepancies were physician- or nurse-directed interruptions (16% of time), planned extubation (7%), feed intolerance (11%), tube malfunction (2%), bedside procedures (2%), and dressing changes (3%).Enterally fed burn patients received significantly less nutrition than prescribed. Some of the causes for discrepancies between prescribed and received EN are unavoidable, but many are not, suggesting the need for careful review and possible alteration of existing EN practices.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 24722665     DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000069

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Burn Care Res        ISSN: 1559-047X            Impact factor:   1.845


  6 in total

1.  Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of Intraoperative Enteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Burn Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Christopher H Pham; Mike Fang; Sebastian Q Vrouwe; Catherine M Kuza; Haig A Yenikomshian; Justin Gillenwater
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2020-07-03       Impact factor: 1.845

2. 

Authors:  G Perro
Journal:  Ann Burns Fire Disasters       Date:  2016-03-31

3.  Nutrition determines outcome after severe burns.

Authors:  Mette M Berger
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

4.  Interrupted Nutrition Support in Patients With Burn Injuries: A Single-Centre Observational Study.

Authors:  Nancy Coutris; Justin P Gawaziuk; Nora Cristall; Sarvesh Logsetty
Journal:  Plast Surg (Oakv)       Date:  2019-10-23       Impact factor: 0.947

Review 5.  Risks in Management of Enteral Nutrition in Intensive Care Units: A Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.

Authors:  Magdalena Hoffmann; Christine Maria Schwarz; Stefan Fürst; Christina Starchl; Elisabeth Lobmeyr; Gerald Sendlhofer; Marie-Madlen Jeitziner
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-12-29       Impact factor: 5.717

6.  Weight changes and patterns of weight measurements in hospitalized burn patients: a contemporary analysis.

Authors:  Denisse Mendez-Romero; Audra T Clark; Alana Christie; Steven E Wolf
Journal:  Burns Trauma       Date:  2018-10-15
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.