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
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Oct 25;26(1):325.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04140-8.

Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aaron J Heffernan #  1   2 , C Talekar #  3   4 , M Henain  3   5   6 , L Purcell  3 , M Palmer  3 , H White  3   4
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aaron J Heffernan et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Background: The enteral route is commonly utilised to support the nutritional requirements of critically ill patients. However, there is paucity of data guiding clinicians regarding the appropriate method of delivering the prescribed dose. Continuous enteral feeding is commonly used; however, a bolus or intermittent method of administration may provide several advantages such as minimising interruptions. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare a continuous versus an intermittent or bolus enteral nutrition administration method.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed with studies identified from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Studies were included if they compared a continuous with either an intermittent or bolus administration method of enteral nutrition in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Study quality was assessed using the PEDro and Newcastle-Ottawa scoring systems. Review Manager was used for performing the random-effects meta-analysis on the outcomes of mortality, constipation, diarrhoea, increased gastric residuals, pneumonia, and bacterial colonisation.

Results: A total of 5546 articles were identified, and 133 were included for full text review. Fourteen were included in the final analysis. There was an increased risk of constipation with patients receiving continuous enteral nutrition (relative risk 2.24, 95% confidence interval 1.01-4.97, p = 0.05). No difference was identified in other outcome measures. No appreciable bias was identified.

Conclusion: The current meta-analysis has not identified any clinically relevant difference in most outcome measures relevant to the care of critically ill patients. However, there is a paucity of high-quality randomised controlled clinical trials to guide this decision. Therefore, clinicians may consider either dosing regimen in the context of the patient's care requirements.

Keywords: Enteral nutrition; Gastric residuals; Intensive care unit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No authors have any conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram outlining article identification and selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Mortality difference in patients receiving continuous versus intermittent/bolus enteral nutrition
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Patients colonised with potentially pathogenic bacteria receiving continuous versus intermittent/bolus enteral nutrition
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Patients developing pneumonia receiving continuous versus intermittent/bolus enteral nutrition
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Patients with diarrhoea receiving continuous versus intermittent/bolus enteral nutrition
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Patients with constipation receiving continuous versus intermittent/bolus enteral nutrition
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Patients with increased gastric residuals receiving continuous versus intermittent/bolus enteral nutrition
Fig. 8
Fig. 8
Funnel plot for diarrhoea outcome assessment
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, Warren MM, Johnson DR, Braunschweig C, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2016;40:159–211. - PubMed
    1. Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matté A, Tomlinson G, Diaz-Granados N, Cooper A, et al. Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1293–1304. - PubMed
    1. Elke G, Wang M, Weiler N, Day AG, Heyland DK. Close to recommended caloric and protein intake by enteral nutrition is associated with better clinical outcome of critically ill septic patients: secondary analysis of a large international nutrition database. Crit Care. 2014;18:R29. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tagawa R, Watanabe D, Ito K, Ueda K, Nakayama K, Sanbongi C, et al. Dose-response relationship between protein intake and muscle mass increase: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutr Rev. 2020;79(1):66–75. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Patel JJ, Kozeniecki M, Peppard WJ, Peppard SR, Zellner-Jones S, Graf J, et al. Phase 3 pilot randomized controlled trial comparing early trophic enteral nutrition with "no enteral nutrition" in mechanically ventilated patients with septic shock. J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2020;44:866–873. - PubMed