4.5 Article

Hypocaloric enteral tube feeding in critically ill obese patients

Journal

NUTRITION
Volume 18, Issue 3, Pages 241-246

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0899-9007(01)00793-6

Keywords

obesity; enteral nutrition; outcomes; hypocaloric feeding; nitrogen balance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: We respectively compared the nutritional and clinical efficacies of eucaloric and hypocaloric enteral feedings in 40 critically ill, obese patients admitted to the trauma or surgical intensive care unit. METHODS., Adult patients, 18 to 69 years old, with weights greater than 125% of ideal body weight, normal renal and hepatic functions, and who received at least 7 d of enteral tube feeding were studied. Patients were stratified according to feeding group: eucaloric feeding ( greater than or equal to20 kcal/kg of adjusted weight per day; n = 12) or hypocaloric feeding (<20 kcal/kg of adjusted weight per day; n = 28). The goal protein intake for both groups was approximately 2 g/kg of ideal body weight per day. Clinical events and nutrition data were recorded for 4 wk. RESULTS: Patients were similar according to sex, age, weight, body mass index, Second Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, Trauma score, and Injury Severity Score. The hypocaloric feeding group received significantly fewer calories than the eucaloric group (P less than or equal to 0.05). The hypocaloric group had a shorter stay in the intensive care unit (18.6 +/- 9.9 d versus 28.5 +/- 16.1 d, P < 0.03), decreased duration of antibiotic therapy days (16.6 +/- 11.7 d versus 27.4 +/- 17.3 d, P < 0.03), and a trend toward a decrease in days of mechanical ventilation (15.9 +/- 10.8 d versus 23.7 +/- 16.6 d, P = 0.09). There was no statistically significant difference in nitrogen balance or serum prealbumin response between groups. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that hypocaloric enteral nutrition support is as least as effective as eucaloric feeding in critically ill, obese patients. (C) Elsevier Science Inc. 2002.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available