4.6 Article

Gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition in ICU patients: the REGANE study

Journal

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
Volume 36, Issue 8, Pages 1386-1393

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-010-1856-y

Keywords

Enteral nutrition; Gastric residual volume; Mechanical ventilation; Ventilator-associated pneumonia; Intensive care unit

Funding

  1. Nestle Nutrition (Spain)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To compare the effects of increasing the limit for gastric residual volume (GRV) in the adequacy of enteral nutrition. Frequency of gastrointestinal complications and outcome variables were secondary goals. An open, prospective, randomized study. Twenty-eight intensive care units in Spain. Three hundred twenty-nine intubated and mechanically ventilated adult patients with enteral nutrition (EN). EN was administered by nasogastric tube. A protocol for management of EN-related gastrointestinal complications was used. Patients were randomized to be included in a control (GRV = 200 ml) or in study group (GRV = 500 ml). Diet volume ratio (diet received/diet prescribed), incidence of gastrointestinal complications, ICU-acquired pneumonia, days on mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay were the study variables. Gastrointestinal complications were higher in the control group (63.6 vs. 47.8%, P = 0.004), but the only difference was in the frequency of high GRV (42.4 vs. 26.8%, P = 0.003). The diet volume ratio was higher for the study group only during the 1st week (84.48 vs. 88.20%) (P = 0.0002). Volume ratio was similar for both groups in weeks 3 and 4. Duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay or frequency of pneumonia were similar. Diet volume ratio of mechanically ventilated patients treated with enteral nutrition is not affected by increasing the limit in GRV. A limit of 500 ml is not associated with adverse effects in gastrointestinal complications or in outcome variables. A value of 500 ml can be equally recommended as a normal limit for GRV.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available