| Literature DB >> 31618360 |
Mariéle Valentini1, Fernanda Braga Seganfredo2, Sabrina Alves Fernandes3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the scientific evidence regarding the initiation of enteral nutrition in the pediatric burn population.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31618360 PMCID: PMC7005954 DOI: 10.5935/0103-507X.20190062
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva ISSN: 0103-507X
Figure 1Flowchart of study selection.
Characteristics of the included studies
| Author (country) | Design | Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria | Intervention | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | BSA | Admission to burn intensive care unit | ||||
| Gottschlich et al.( | RCT, nonblinded, single-center | 3 - 18 years | > 25% | < 24 hours after the burn | Not reported | EEN (< 24 hours) |
| Venter et al.( | RCT, nonblinded, single-center | 6 months -13 years | ≥ 20% | < 24 hours after the burn | Not reported | EEN (< 24 hours) + enteral volume replacement |
| Khorasani and Mansouri( | RCT, nonblinded, single-center | 30 days - 12 years | ≥ 10% | < 2 hours after the burn | Previous chronic diseases: diabetes, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis | EEN (3 - 6 hours) + enteral volume replacement |
BSA - burned body surface; RCT - randomized clinical trial; EEN - early enteral nutrition; LEN - late enteral nutrition; IV - intravenous.
Characteristics of the study population
| Author (country) | Sample size (n) | Sex (male/female) (n) | Age (years) | BSA (%) | Admission (days) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gottschlich et al.( | EEN: 36 | EEN: 28/8 | EEN: 9.1 (0.7) | EEN: 51.1 (3.2) | EEN: 0.5 (0.1) |
| Venter et al.( | EEN: 11 | Not reported | EEN: 4.54 | EEN: 29.5 | Not reported |
| Khorasani and Mansouri( | EEN: 366 | Not reported | EEN: 5.0 (3.5) | EEN: 22 (15) | Not reported |
BSA - burned body surface; EEN - early enteral nutrition; LEN - late enteral nutrition. Data are expressed as the mean (± standard deviation), except
expressed as the median.
Characteristics of the intervention and control groups in the included studies.
| Author (country) | Burn type (%) | Feeding route | Start of feeding (hours) | Type of diet | Time to achieve goal (hours) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gottschlich et al.( | Not reported | Nasoduodenal tube | EEN: 15.6 (1.0) | Hyperproteic, hypolipidemic, fiber-free polymeric formula, CD 1.0kcal/mL | EEN: 30.3 (2.9) |
| Venter et al.( | EEN: | Nasojejunal tube and oral route | EEN: 10.7 (5.5 - 23) | Polymeric formula and supplementation of glucose polymer and hydrolyzed protein on the 3rd day in the EEN group and on the 5th day in the LEN | EEN: 16 (13 - 24) |
| Khorasani and Mansouri( | EEN: | Nasojejunal tube and oral route | EEN: 3 - 6 | Polymeric formula and supplementation of glucose polymer and hydrolyzed protein on the 3rd day in the EEN group and on the 5th day in the LEN | Not reported |
EEN - early enteral nutrition; LEN - late enteral nutrition; CD - caloric density. Data are expressed as the mean (± standard deviation), except
expressed as the median (95% confidence interval).
Figure 2Mortality in the intervention and control groups.
EEN - early enteral nutrition; LEN - late enteral nutrition.
Figure 3Length of hospital stay (days) for the intervention and control groups.
EEN - early enteral nutrition; LEN - late enteral nutrition.
Assessment of risk of bias in the included studies
| Gottschlich et al.( | ||
| RCT | ||
| Sequence generation | Low | Randomized upon admission |
| Allocation concealment | Low | Randomized upon admission |
| Blinding of participants, researchers or outcome assessment | Moderate | Not blinded but the results are probably not affected |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low | Explained the loss of patients |
| Selective reporting of outcomes | Low | Specific results were reported |
| Other sources of bias | Low | There seems to be no other sources of bias |
| Venter et al.( | ||
| RCT | ||
| Sequence generation | Moderate | Randomized but do not explain how |
| Allocation concealment | Low | Randomized upon admission |
| Blinding of participants, researchers or outcome assessment | Moderate | Not blinded but the results are probably not affected |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low | Explained the loss of patients |
| Selective reporting of outcomes | Low | Specific results were reported |
| Other sources of bias | Low | There seems to be no other sources of bias |
| Khorasani and Mansouri( | ||
| RCT | ||
| Sequence generation | Low | Randomized according to the date of admission |
| Allocation concealment | Low | Randomized according to the date of admission |
| Blinding of participants, researchers or outcome assessment | Moderate | Not blinded but the results are probably not affected |
| Incomplete outcome data | Low | All patients completed the study |
| Selective reporting of outcomes | Low | Specific results were reported |
| Other sources of bias | Low | There seems to be no other sources of bias |
RCT - randomized clinical trial.
Search strategy
| Database | Terms | |
|---|---|---|
| MEDLINE (via PubMed) | #1 | |
| #2 | ||
| Cochrane | #1 | |
| #2 | ||
| Embase | #1 | |
| #2 |