Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Oct;44(5):265-269.
doi: 10.5152/TJAR.2016.92499. Epub 2016 Oct 1.

Comparison of Two Different Enteral Nutrition Protocol in Critically Ill Patients

Sibel Büyükçoban  1 , Mert Akan  1 , Uğur Koca  1 , Merih Yıldız Eğlen  2 , Meltem Çiçeklioğlu  3 , Ömür Mavioğlu  1
Affiliations

Comparison of Two Different Enteral Nutrition Protocol in Critically Ill Patients

Sibel Büyükçoban et al. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2016 Oct.

Abstract

Objective: In this study, two enteral nutrition protocols with different gastric residual volumes (GRVs) and different monitoring intervals were compared with respect to gastrointestinal intolerance findings in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

Methods: The study was carried out prospectively in 60 patients in the anaesthesiology and reanimation ICU under mechanical ventilation support, who were scheduled to take enteral feeding. Patients were sequentially divided into two groups: Group 1, GRV threshold of 100 mL, and monitoring interval of 4 hours, and Group 2, GRV threshold of 200 mL, monitoring interval of 8 hours. To test the significant difference between the groups, Student's t test, chi-square text and Fisher exact test were used.

Results: In Group 1, 3.3% vomiting, 6.6% diarrhoea was observed; in Group 2, 16.6% vomiting, 10% diarrhoea. In terms of total intolerance (vomiting and/or diarrhoea) of the two groups, the incidence was significantly higher in Group 2 (33.3%) than in Group 1 (10%) (p=0.02).

Conclusion: According to the results of the study, a lower gastrointestinal intolerance rate was detected in the GRV threshold 100 mL, monitoring interval for 4 hours protocol (Group 1) than in GRV threshold 200 mL, monitoring interval for 8 hours protocol (Group 2); Group 1 may be preferred renovation.

Keywords: Enteral nutrition; critical Ill patient; gastric residual volume; intensive care unit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: First four and last authors (S.B., M.A., U.K., M.Y.E., Ö.M) was working in the Anaesthesiolgy ICU of Dokuz Eylül University Medicine Faculty Hospital during the study period.

References

    1. Elke G, Felbinger TW, Heyland DK. Gastric residual volume in critically ill patients: a dead marker or still alive? Nutr Clin Pract. 2015;30:59–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0884533614562841. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pinilla JC, Samphire J, Arnold C, Liu L, Thiessen B. Comparison of gastrointestinal tolerans to two enteral feeding protocols in critically ill patients: A prospective, randomized controlled trial. JPEN. 2001;25:81–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014860710102500281. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Spain DA, McClave SA, Sexton LK, Adams JL, Blanford BS, Sullins ME, et al. Infusion protocol improves delivery of enteral tube feeding in the critical care unit. JPEN. 1999;23:288–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0148607199023005288. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mahana E, Crimi E, White P, Mann DS, Fahy BG. Nutrition and metabolic support for critically ill patients. Curr Opin Anaestesiol. 2015;28:131–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000172. - DOI - PubMed
    1. DeLegge MH. Enteral access in home care. JPEN. 2006;30:13–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/01486071060300S1S13. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources