Sibel Büyükçoban1, Mert Akan1, Uğur Koca1, Merih Yıldız Eğlen2, Meltem Çiçeklioğlu3, Ömür Mavioğlu1. 1. Department of Anaestesiology and Reanimation, Dokuz Eylül University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey. 2. Malatya State Hospital, Anaestesiology and Reanimation, Malatya, Turkey. 3. Department of Public Health, Ege University School of Medicine, İzmir, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, two enteral nutrition protocols with different gastric residual volumes (GRVs) and different monitoring intervals were compared with respect to gastrointestinal intolerance findings in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: The study was carried out prospectively in 60 patients in the anaesthesiology and reanimation ICU under mechanical ventilation support, who were scheduled to take enteral feeding. Patients were sequentially divided into two groups: Group 1, GRV threshold of 100 mL, and monitoring interval of 4 hours, and Group 2, GRV threshold of 200 mL, monitoring interval of 8 hours. To test the significant difference between the groups, Student's t test, chi-square text and Fisher exact test were used. RESULTS: In Group 1, 3.3% vomiting, 6.6% diarrhoea was observed; in Group 2, 16.6% vomiting, 10% diarrhoea. In terms of total intolerance (vomiting and/or diarrhoea) of the two groups, the incidence was significantly higher in Group 2 (33.3%) than in Group 1 (10%) (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: According to the results of the study, a lower gastrointestinal intolerance rate was detected in the GRV threshold 100 mL, monitoring interval for 4 hours protocol (Group 1) than in GRV threshold 200 mL, monitoring interval for 8 hours protocol (Group 2); Group 1 may be preferred renovation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: In this study, two enteral nutrition protocols with different gastric residual volumes (GRVs) and different monitoring intervals were compared with respect to gastrointestinal intolerance findings in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: The study was carried out prospectively in 60 patients in the anaesthesiology and reanimation ICU under mechanical ventilation support, who were scheduled to take enteral feeding. Patients were sequentially divided into two groups: Group 1, GRV threshold of 100 mL, and monitoring interval of 4 hours, and Group 2, GRV threshold of 200 mL, monitoring interval of 8 hours. To test the significant difference between the groups, Student's t test, chi-square text and Fisher exact test were used. RESULTS: In Group 1, 3.3% vomiting, 6.6% diarrhoea was observed; in Group 2, 16.6% vomiting, 10% diarrhoea. In terms of total intolerance (vomiting and/or diarrhoea) of the two groups, the incidence was significantly higher in Group 2 (33.3%) than in Group 1 (10%) (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: According to the results of the study, a lower gastrointestinal intolerance rate was detected in the GRV threshold 100 mL, monitoring interval for 4 hours protocol (Group 1) than in GRV threshold 200 mL, monitoring interval for 8 hours protocol (Group 2); Group 1 may be preferred renovation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Enteral nutrition; critical Ill patient; gastric residual volume; intensive care unit
Authors: Mary E Flesher; Katharine A Archer; Barbara D Leslie; Robert A McCollom; Grzegorz P Martinka Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2005 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.016