Continuous versus Intermittent Enteral Tube Feeding for Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

The appropriate strategy for enteral feeding remains a matter of debate. We hypothesized that continuous enteral feeding would result in higher rates of achieving target nutrition during the first 7 days compared with intermittent enteral feeding. We conducted an unblinded, single-center, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial involving adult patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit who required mechanical ventilation to determine the efficacy and safety of continuous enteral feeding for critically ill patients compared with intermittent enteral feeding. The primary endpoint was the achievement of ≥80% of the target nutrition requirement during the first 7 days after starting enteral feeding. A total of 99 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (intermittent enteral feeding group, n = 49; continuous enteral feeding group, n = 50). The intermittent enteral feeding group and continuous enteral feeding group received 227 days and 226 days of enteral feeding, respectively. The achievement of ≥80% of the target nutrition requirement occurred significantly more frequently in the continuous enteral feeding group than in the intermittent enteral feeding group (65.0% versus 52.4%, respectively; relative risk, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45; p = 0.008). For patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, continuous enteral feeding significantly improved the achievement of target nutrition requirements.

Keywords: critically ill; enteral feeding; mechanical ventilation; nutrition.

Figure 1

Patient recruitment flow diagram.

Figure 2

Daily enteral nutrition delivery during the 7-day trial period. This figure shows the percentage of delivered target enteral nutrition.