Lyvonne N Tume1,2, Frédéric V Valla3. 1. Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, The University of the West of England, Glenside Campus, Blackberry Hill, Stapleton, Bristol, BS16 1DD, UK. Lyvonne.Tume@UWE.ac.uk. 2. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Bristol Children's Hospital, Upper Maudlin Street, Bristol, UK. Lyvonne.Tume@UWE.ac.uk. 3. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hôpital Femme Mère Enfant, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 59 Bd Pinel, 69500, Lyon-Bron, France.
Abstract
Ensuring optimal nutrition is vital in critically ill children and enteral feeding is the main route of delivery in intensive care. Feeding intolerance is the most commonly cited reason amongst pediatric intensive care unit healthcare professionals for stopping or withholding enteral nutrition, yet the definition for this remains inconsistent, nebulous, and entirely arbitrary. Not only does this pose problems clinically, but research in this field frequently uses feeding intolerance as an endpoint and the heterogeneity in this definition makes the comparison of studies difficult and meta-analysis impossible. We reviewed the use of, and definitions of, the term feed intolerance in pediatric intensive care research papers in the last 20 years. Gastric residual volume remains the most common factor used to define feed intolerance, despite the lack of evidence for this. Healthcare professionals would benefit from further education to improve their awareness of the limitations of the markers to define feeding intolerance, and the international PICU community needs to agree a consistent definition of this phenomenon to improve consistency in both practice and research. Conclusion: This paper will provide a narrative review of the definitions of, evidence for, and markers of feeding intolerance in critically ill children. What is Known?: • Feeding intolerance is a commonly cited reason amongst pediatric intensive care unit healthcare professionals for stopping or withholding enteral nutrition. • There is no agreed definition for feeding intolerance in critically ill children. What is New?: • This paper provides an up to date review of the definitions of, evidence for, and markers of feeding intolerance in critically ill children. • Despite no evidence, gastric residual volume continues to drive clinical bedside decisions about enteral feeding and feeding tolerance.
Ensuring optimal nutrition is vital in critically ill children and enteral feeding is the main route of delivery in intensive care. Feeding intolerance is the most commonly cited reason amongst pediatric intensive care unit healthcare professionals for stopping or withholding enteral nutrition, yet the definition for this remains inconsistent, nebulous, and entirely arbitrary. Not only does this pose problems clinically, but research in this field frequently uses feeding intolerance as an endpoint and the heterogeneity in this definition makes the comparison of studies difficult and meta-analysis impossible. We reviewed the use of, and definitions of, the term feed intolerance in pediatric intensive care research papers in the last 20 years. Gastric residual volume remains the most common factor used to define feed intolerance, despite the lack of evidence for this. Healthcare professionals would benefit from further education to improve their awareness of the limitations of the markers to define feeding intolerance, and the international PICU community needs to agree a consistent definition of this phenomenon to improve consistency in both practice and research. Conclusion: This paper will provide a narrative review of the definitions of, evidence for, and markers of feeding intolerance in critically ill children. What is Known?: • Feeding intolerance is a commonly cited reason amongst pediatric intensive care unit healthcare professionals for stopping or withholding enteral nutrition. • There is no agreed definition for feeding intolerance in critically ill children. What is New?: • This paper provides an up to date review of the definitions of, evidence for, and markers of feeding intolerance in critically ill children. • Despite no evidence, gastric residual volume continues to drive clinical bedside decisions about enteral feeding and feeding tolerance.
Authors: Marc Reismann; Mirja von Kampen; Birgit Laupichler; Robert Suempelmann; Annika I Schmidt; Benno M Ure Journal: J Pediatr Surg Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 2.545
Authors: Amanda Y Leong; Kristina R Cartwright; Gonzalo Garcia Guerra; Ari R Joffe; Vera C Mazurak; Bodil M K Larsen Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Farah Chedly Thabet; Iheb Mohamed Bougmiza; May Said Chehab; Hind Ali Bafaqih; Sulaiman Abdulkareem AlMohaimeed; Manu L N G Malbrain Journal: J Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 3.510
Authors: Anton-Paul T Mayer; Andrew Durward; Charles Turner; Sophie Skellett; Neil Dalton; Shane M Tibby; Ian A Murdoch Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2002-02-08 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Bodil M K Larsen; Laksiri A Goonewardene; Catherine J Field; Ari R Joffe; John E Van Aerde; Dana Lee Olstad; Michael T Clandinin Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Jorge López; Marta Botrán; Ana García; Rafael González; María J Solana; Javier Urbano; Sarah N Fernández; César Sánchez; Jesús López-Herce Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2015-08-05 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Lyvonne N Tume; Barbara Arch; Kerry Woolfall; Lynne Latten; Elizabeth Deja; Louise Roper; Nazima Pathan; Helen Eccleson; Helen Hickey; Michaela Brown; Anne Beissel; Izabela Andrzejewska; Chris Gale; Frédéric V Valla; Jon Dorling Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 3.624