Laurent Carteron1,2, Emmanuel Samain3,4, Hadrien Winiszewski4,5, Gilles Blasco3, Anne-Sophie Balon3, Camille Gilli3, Gael Piton4,5, Gilles Capellier4,5, Sebastien Pili-Floury3,4, Guillaume Besch3,4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Besancon, 3 bvd Alexander Fleming, 25000, Besancon, France. lcarteron@chu-besancon.fr. 2. EA3920, University of Franche Comté, Besancon, France. lcarteron@chu-besancon.fr. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Besancon, 3 bvd Alexander Fleming, 25000, Besancon, France. 4. EA3920, University of Franche Comté, Besancon, France. 5. Medical Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Besancon, Besancon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The properties of semi-elemental enteral nutrition might theoretically improve gastrointestinal tolerance in brain-injured patients, known to suffer gastroparesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of a semi-elemental versus a polymeric formula for enteral nutrition (EN) in brain-injured critically ill patients. METHODS: Prospective, randomized study including brain-injured adult patients [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤ 8] with an expected duration of mechanical ventilation > 48 h. INTERVENTION: anenteral semi-elemental (SE group) or polymeric (P group) formula. EN was started within 36 h after admission to the intensive care unit and was delivered according to a standardized nurse-driven protocol. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who received both 60% of the daily energy goal at 3 days and 100% of the daily energy goal at 5 days after inclusion. Tolerance of EN was assessed by the rate of gastroparesis, vomiting and diarrhea. RESULTS: Respectively, 100 and 95 patients were analyzed in the SE and P groups: Age (57[44-65] versus 55[40-65] years) and GCS (6[3-7] versus 5[3-7]) did not differ between groups. The percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint was similar (46% and 48%, respectively; relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.05 (0.78-1.42); p = 0.73). The mean daily energy intake was, respectively, 20.2 ± 6.3 versus 21.0 ± 6.5 kcal/kg/day (p = 0.42). Protein intakes were 1.3 ± 0.4 versus 1.1 ± 0.3 g/kg/day (p < 0.0001). Respectively, 18% versus 12% patients presented gastroparesis (p = 0.21), and 16% versus 8% patients suffered from diarrhea (p = 0.11). No patient presented vomiting in either group. CONCLUSION: Semi-elemental compared to polymeric formula did not improve daily energy intake or gastrointestinal tolerance of enteral nutrition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT/ID-RCB 2012-A00078-35 (registered January 17, 2012).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The properties of semi-elemental enteral nutrition might theoretically improve gastrointestinal tolerance in brain-injured patients, known to suffer gastroparesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of a semi-elemental versus a polymeric formula for enteral nutrition (EN) in brain-injured critically illpatients. METHODS: Prospective, randomized study including brain-injured adult patients [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤ 8] with an expected duration of mechanical ventilation > 48 h. INTERVENTION: an enteral semi-elemental (SE group) or polymeric (P group) formula. EN was started within 36 h after admission to the intensive care unit and was delivered according to a standardized nurse-driven protocol. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who received both 60% of the daily energy goal at 3 days and 100% of the daily energy goal at 5 days after inclusion. Tolerance of EN was assessed by the rate of gastroparesis, vomiting and diarrhea. RESULTS: Respectively, 100 and 95 patients were analyzed in the SE and P groups: Age (57[44-65] versus 55[40-65] years) and GCS (6[3-7] versus 5[3-7]) did not differ between groups. The percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint was similar (46% and 48%, respectively; relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.05 (0.78-1.42); p = 0.73). The mean daily energy intake was, respectively, 20.2 ± 6.3 versus 21.0 ± 6.5 kcal/kg/day (p = 0.42). Protein intakes were 1.3 ± 0.4 versus 1.1 ± 0.3 g/kg/day (p < 0.0001). Respectively, 18% versus 12% patients presented gastroparesis (p = 0.21), and 16% versus 8% patients suffered from diarrhea (p = 0.11). No patient presented vomiting in either group. CONCLUSION: Semi-elemental compared to polymeric formula did not improve daily energy intake or gastrointestinal tolerance of enteral nutrition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT/ID-RCB 2012-A00078-35 (registered January 17, 2012).
Authors: K G Kreymann; M M Berger; N E P Deutz; M Hiesmayr; P Jolliet; G Kazandjiev; G Nitenberg; G van den Berghe; J Wernerman; C Ebner; W Hartl; C Heymann; C Spies Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2006-05-11 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Pierre Singer; Annika Reintam Blaser; Mette M Berger; Waleed Alhazzani; Philip C Calder; Michael P Casaer; Michael Hiesmayr; Konstantin Mayer; Juan Carlos Montejo; Claude Pichard; Jean-Charles Preiser; Arthur R H van Zanten; Simon Oczkowski; Wojciech Szczeklik; Stephan C Bischoff Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Arthur R H van Zanten; Laurent Petit; Jan De Waele; Hans Kieft; Janneke de Wilde; Peter van Horssen; Marianne Klebach; Zandrie Hofman Journal: Crit Care Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Marcin Folwarski; Stanisław Kłęk; Agata Zoubek-Wójcik; Waldemar Szafrański; Lidia Bartoszewska; Krzysztof Figuła; Marlena Jakubczyk; Anna Jurczuk; Zbigniew Kamocki; Tomasz Kowalczyk; Bogna Kwella; Przemysław Matras; Joanna Sonsala-Wołczyk; Jacek Szopiński; Krystyna Urbanowicz; Anna Zmarzły Journal: Front Nutr Date: 2022-07-07