4.7 Article

Semi-elemental versus polymeric formula for enteral nutrition in brain-injured critically ill patients: a randomized trial

Journal

CRITICAL CARE
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-03456-7

Keywords

Nutrition; Semi-elemental; Brain injury; Critically ill

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI)
  3. Medical Research Council (MRC)
  4. Wellcome Trust
  5. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, 3 Bvd Alexander Fleming, University Hospital of Besancon, Besancon, France

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the efficacy and tolerance of a semi-elemental versus a polymeric formula for enteral nutrition in brain-injured critically ill patients. The results showed that the semi-elemental formula did not improve daily energy intake or gastrointestinal tolerance compared to the polymeric formula.
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: 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.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available