Literature DB >> 7774216

Enteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a prospective survey.

D Heyland1, D J Cook, B Winder, L Brylowski, H Van deMark, G Guyatt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To describe current enteral nutrition-prescribing practices for critically ill patients, and to identify factors associated with initiation of, and tolerance to, enteral nutrition.
DESIGN: A prospective, cohort study.
SETTING: Two tertiary care medical-surgical intensive care units (ICU) in Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: We enrolled 99 consecutive patients who were expected to stay in the ICU for > 3 days and who were unable to tolerate oral nutrition. We followed patients for 21 days or until they tolerated enteral nutrition, tolerated oral nutrition, were discharged from the ICU, or died.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We recorded time elapsed from ICU admission to initiation and tolerance of enteral feedings, and examined factors associated with these events. We defined tolerance as receiving 90% of estimated daily energy requirements for > 48 hrs without gastrointestinal dysfunction (i.e., high gastric residuals, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal distention). Seventy-three (74%) of 99 patients were started on enteral feedings an average 3.1 days (range 1 to 18) after ICU admission. Of 26 patients never started on enteral nutrition, three (12.5%) patients eventually tolerated oral nutrition, 14 (54.0%) patients were discharged from the ICU, and seven (27.0%) patients died. Reasons for not initiating enteral nutrition included absence of bowel sounds (27.0%), high nasogastric drainage (16.9%), contraindication to enteral nutrition (16.7%), tolerance of oral nutrition (6.8%), and no apparent reason (5.1%). Abdominal surgery, use of vasoactive drugs, and admission to one hospital made initiation of enteral nutrition less likely, whereas presence of bowel sounds and admission to the other hospital made initiation of enteral nutrition more likely. Thirty-five (42.9%) of 73 patients started on enteral nutrition achieved tolerance of the regimen. The average time from ICU admission to tolerance of feedings was 5.8 days (range 1 to 14). Once started on enteral nutrition, the most common reasons for decreasing or discontinuing feedings included high gastric residuals (51.0%), mechanical feeding tube problems (15.4%), medical or surgical procedures (5.4%), and vomiting (5.1%). Use of paralytic agents and the presence of high gastric residuals were associated with intolerance. Of 38 patients who did not achieve tolerance, 20 (52.6%) patients were discharged from the ICU, eight (21.0%) patients died, and eight (21.0%) patients eventually tolerated oral nutrition.
CONCLUSIONS: Enteral nutrition is not started in all eligible ICU patients. Approximately half of those patients receiving enteral nutrition achieved tolerance of the regimen. Gastrointestinal dysfunction causing intolerance to enteral nutrition is a common reason for not starting, or discontinuing, feedings.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7774216     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199506000-00010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  47 in total

1.  Modulation of postoperative immune and inflammatory response by immune-enhancing enteral diet in gastrointestinal cancer patients.

Authors:  G H Wu; Y W Zhang; Z H Wu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  Nutritional papers in ICU patients: what lies between the lines?

Authors:  Jean-Charles Preiser; René Chioléro; Jan Wernerman
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2002-12-21       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 3.  Combination enteral and parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: harmful or beneficial? A systematic review of the evidence.

Authors:  Rupinder Dhaliwal; Brian Jurewitsch; Darlene Harrietha; Daren K Heyland
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2004-06-08       Impact factor: 17.440

4.  Small bowel perforation after incomplete removal of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy catheter.

Authors:  A Lattuneddu; P Morgagni; G Benati; S Delvecchio; D Garcea
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2003-10-13       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  Antro-pyloro-duodenal motor responses to gastric and duodenal nutrient in critically ill patients.

Authors:  M Chapman; R Fraser; R Vozzo; L Bryant; W Tam; N Nguyen; B Zacharakis; R Butler; G Davidson; M Horowitz
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-05-29       Impact factor: 23.059

6.  Prokinetic therapy with erythromycin has no significant impact on blood pressure and heart rate in critically ill patients.

Authors:  N Q Nguyen; A A Mangoni; R J Fraser; M Chapman; L Bryant; C Burgstad; R H Holloway
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 7.  Mechanisms underlying feed intolerance in the critically ill: implications for treatment.

Authors:  Adam Deane; Marianne J Chapman; Robert J Fraser; Laura K Bryant; Carly Burgstad; Nam Q Nguyen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-08-07       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Cisapride reduces postoperative gastrocaecal transit time after cardiac surgery in children.

Authors:  L Bindl; S Buderus; M Ramirez; P Kirchhoff; M J Lentze
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 9.  Stress-related mucosal disease in the critically ill patient.

Authors:  Marc Bardou; Jean-Pierre Quenot; Alan Barkun
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 46.802

10.  Challenges to optimal enteral nutrition in a multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care unit.

Authors:  Nilesh M Mehta; Dianne McAleer; Susan Hamilton; Elizabeth Naples; Kristen Leavitt; Paul Mitchell; Christopher Duggan
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 4.016

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.