4.7 Article

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

期刊

CRITICAL CARE
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

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

关键词

Nutrition; Semi-elemental; Brain injury; Critically ill

资金

  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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据