Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose of Review Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy can provide vital nutrition support for patients with various medical conditions as long as it is indicated and supported by ethical reasoning. This review seeks to offer a detailed account of the history of EN development, highlighting key milestones and recent advances in the field. Additionally, it covers common complications associated with EN and their management. Recent Findings After years of research and development, we have reached newer generations of enteral feeding formulations, more options for enteral tubes and connectors, and a better understanding of EN therapy challenges. Given the availability of many different formulas, selecting a feeding formula with the best evidence for specific indications for enteral feeding is recommended. Initiation of enteral feeding with standard polymeric formula remains the standard of care. Transition to small-bore connectors remains suboptimal. Summary Evidence-based practices should be followed to recognize and reduce possible enteral feeding complications early.

Increased protein provision might ameliorate muscle wasting and improve long-term outcomes in critically ill patients. The aim of the PRECISe trial was to assess whether higher enteral protein provision (ie, 2·0 g/kg per day) would improve health-related quality of life and functional outcomes in critically ill patients who were mechanically ventilated compared with standard enteral protein provision (ie, 1·3 g/kg per day). The PRECISe trial was an investigator-initiated, double-blinded, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in five Dutch hospitals and five Belgian hospitals. Inclusion criteria were initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and an expected duration of invasive ventilation of 3 days or longer. Exclusion criteria were contraindications for enteral nutrition, moribund condition, BMI less than 18 kg/m2, kidney failure with a no dialysis code, or hepatic encephalopathy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four randomisation labels, corresponding with two study groups (ie, standard or high protein; two labels per group) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio through an interactive web-response system. Randomisation was done via random permuted-block randomisation in varying block sizes of eight and 12, stratified by centre. Participants, care providers, investigators, outcome assessors, data analysts, and the independent data safety monitoring board were all blinded to group allocation. Patients received isocaloric enteral feeds that contained 1·3 kcal/mL and 0·06 g of protein/mL (ie, standard protein) or 1·3 kcal/mL and 0·10 g of protein/mL (ie, high protein). The study-nutrition intervention was limited to the time period during the patient's ICU stay in which they required enteral feeding, with a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) health utility score at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days after randomisation, adjusted for baseline EQ-5D-5L health utility score. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04633421) and is closed to new participants. Between Nov 19, 2020, and April 14, 2023, 935 patients were randomly assigned. 335 (35·8%) of 935 patients were female and 600 (64·2%) were male. 465 (49·7%) of 935 were assigned to the standard protein group and 470 (50·3%) were assigned to the high protein group. 430 (92·5%) of 465 patients in the standard protein group and 419 (89·1%) of 470 patients in the high protein group were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary outcome, EQ-5D-5L health utility score during 180 days after randomisation (assessed at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days), was lower in patients allocated to the high protein group than in those allocated to the standard protein group, with a mean difference of –0·05 (95% CI –0·10 to –0·01; p=0·031). Regarding safety outcomes, the probability of mortality during the entire follow-up was 0·38 (SE 0·02) in the standard protein group and 0·42 (0·02) in the high protein group (hazard ratio 1·14, 95% CI 0·92 to 1·40; p=0·22). There was a higher incidence of symptoms of gastrointestinal intolerance in patients in the high protein group (odds ratio 1·76, 95% CI 1·06 to 2·92; p=0·030). Incidence of other adverse events did not differ between groups. High enteral protein provision compared with standard enteral protein provision resulted in worse health-related quality of life in critically ill patients and did not improve functional outcomes during 180 days after ICU admission. Netherlands Organisation for Healthcare Research and Development and Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre.

This trial involving critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation compared the effects of energy-dense and routine enteral nutrition. The use of an energy-dense formulation did not increase the rate of survival at 90 days.

Background Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no outcome differences between the two routes. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of the route of nutrition (EN versus PN) on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. Methods An electronic search from 1980 to 2016 was performed identifying relevant RCTs. Individual trial data were abstracted and methodological quality of included trials scored independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was overall mortality and secondary outcomes included infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the treatment effect by dissimilar caloric intakes, year of publication and trial methodology. We performed a test of asymmetry to assess for the presence of publication bias. Results A total of 18 RCTs studying 3347 patients met inclusion criteria. Median methodological score was 7 (range, 2–12). No effect on overall mortality was found (1.04, 95 % CI 0.82, 1.33, P  = 0.75, heterogeneity I 2  = 11 %). EN compared to PN was associated with a significant reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.48, 0.87, P  = 0.004, I 2  = 47 %). This was more pronounced in the subgroup of RCTs where the PN group received significantly more calories (RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.37, 0.82, P  = 0.003, I 2  = 0 %), while no effect was seen in trials where EN and PN groups had a similar caloric intake (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.80, 1.10, P  = 0.44, I 2  = 0 %; test for subgroup differences, P  = 0.003). Year of publication and methodological quality did not influence these findings; however, a publication bias may be present as the test of asymmetry was significant ( P  = 0.003). EN was associated with significant reduction in ICU LOS (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.80, 95 % CI −1.23, −0.37, P  = 0.0003, I 2  = 0 %) while no significant differences in hospital LOS and mechanical ventilation were observed. Conclusions In critically ill patients, the use of EN as compared to PN has no effect on overall mortality but decreases infectious complications and ICU LOS. This may be explained by the benefit of reduced macronutrient intake rather than the enteral route itself.

Patients with functional gastrointestinal tract who are unable to meet their nutritional requirements may benefit from the use of enteral nutrition via feeding tubes which could be nasogastric, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy and jejunostomy. Although enteral tube feeding has been shown to promote nutritional status, improve wound healing, and enhance patients’ quality of life (QoL), evidence of tube and feed complications and reduced QoL has also been reported. Despite the increasing prevalence of patients on enteral tube feeding, no systematic review examining the role of enteral tube feeding on patients’ QoL appears to have been published. Aim: The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effect of enteral tube feeding on patients’ QoL. Method: Three databases (EMBASE, Pubmed, and PsycINFO) plus Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles based on the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes (PICO) framework. The review was in line with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and involved the use of synonyms and medical subject headings. In addition, search terms were combined using Boolean operators (AND/OR) and all the articles retrieved were exported to EndNote for de-duplication. Results: Fourteen articles which met the criteria were included and three distinct areas were identified: the effect of early versus late enteral tube feeding on QoL; the QoL of patients on gastrostomy versus standard care, and the effect of enteral tube feeding on QoL. Overall, nine studies reported improvement in the QoL of patients on enteral tube feeding, while five studies demonstrated either no significant difference or reduction in QoL. Some factors which may have influenced these outcomes are differences in types of gastrostomy tubes, enteral feeding methods (including time patients spent connected to enteral feed/pump), and patients’ medical conditions, as well as the generic and/or type of QoL measuring instrument used. Conclusion: Most reviewed studies suggest that enteral tube feeding is effective in improving patients’ QoL. The use of enteral tube feeding-specific QoL measuring instruments is recommended for future research, and improved management strategies including use of mobile enteral feeding pumps should further enhance patients’ QoL. More studies on the effect of delivery systems/enteral feeding pumps on QoL are needed as research in this area is limited.

In this randomized trial involving very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants, there was no significant difference in survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months with a strategy of advancing milk feeding volumes in daily increments of 30 ml per kilogram of body weight as compared with 18 ml per kilogram.

Early parenteral nutrition to supplement insufficient enteral feeding during intensive care (early PN) delays recovery as compared with withholding parenteral nutrition for 1 week (late PN). To assess whether deleterious effects of early PN relate to severity of illness or to the dose or type of macronutrients. Secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trial (EPaNIC; n = 4,640) performed in seven intensive care units from three departments in two Belgian hospitals. In part 1, all patients were included to assess the effect of the randomized allocation to early PN or late PN in subgroups of patients with increasing-on-admission severity of illness. In part 2, observationally, the association of the amount and type of macronutrients with recovery was documented in those patient cohorts still present in intensive care on Days 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14. The primary end point was time to live discharge from the intensive care unit. For part 1, a secondary end point, acquisition of new infections, was also analyzed. All statistical analyses were performed by univariable and adjusted multivariable methods. In none of the subgroups defined by type or severity of illness was a beneficial effect of early PN observed. The lowest dose of macronutrients was associated with the fastest recovery and any higher dose, administered parenterally or enterally, was associated with progressively more delayed recovery. The amount of proteins/amino acids rather than of glucose appeared to explain delayed recovery with early feeding. Early combined parenteral/enteral nutrition delayed recovery irrespective of severity of critical illness. No dose or type of macronutrient was found to be associated with improved outcome. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00512122).

Introduction Weight loss in cancer patients is a worrisome constitutional change predicting disease progression and shortened survival time. A logical approach to counter some of the weight loss is to provide nutritional support, administered through enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN). The aim of this paper was to update the original systematic review and meta-analysis previously published by Chow et al., while also assessing publication quality and effect of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the meta-conclusion over time. Methods A literature search was carried out; screening was conducted for RCTs published in January 2015 up until December 2018. The primary endpoints were the percentage of patients achieving no infection and no nutrition support complications. Secondary endpoints included proportion of patients achieving no major complications and no mortality. Review Manager (RevMan 5.3) by Cochrane IMS and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (version 3) by Biostat were used for meta-analyses of endpoints and assessment of publication quality. Results An additional seven studies were identified since our prior publication, leading to 43 papers included in our review. The results echo those previously published; EN and PN are equivalent in all endpoints except for infection. Subgroup analyses of studies only containing adults indicate identical risks across all endpoints. Cumulative meta-analysis suggests that meta-conclusions have remained the same since the beginning of publication time for all endpoints except for the endpoint of infection, which changed from not favoring to favoring EN after studies published in 1997. There was low risk of bias, as determined by assessment tool and visual inspection of funnel plots. Conclusions The results support the current European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guidelines recommending enteral over parenteral nutrition, when oral nutrition is inadequate, in adult patients. Further studies comparing EN and PN for these critical endpoints appear unnecessary, given the lack of change in meta-conclusion and low publication bias over the past decades.

Objective To analyze the influencing factors and nursing strategies for enteral nutrition patients complicated with refeeding syndrome (RS) in the ICU. Methods A total of 173 enteral nutrition patients in the ICU admitted to our hospital from January 2020 to January 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into a control group (without RS, n  = 128) and an observation group (with RS, n  = 45) based on whether they developed RS. The general data such as gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) of patients were compared. The enteral nutrition-related indexes of two groups such as gastrointestinal decompression before feeding, diuretic application before feeding, and parenteral nutrition were compared. The risk factors of RS in ICU enteral nutrition patients were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. Patients in the observation group received targeted nursing strategies according to the risk factors. The levels of serum phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, albumin, and prealbumin were detected before and after nursing intervention. Results The proportion of age ≥ 60 years, BMI ≥ 18.5 kg/m 2 , diabetes history, cerebrovascular disease, severe pneumonia, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score > 20, duration of mechanical ventilation ≥ 3 days, NRS 2002 rating high risk in the observation group was much higher than that in the control group ( P  < 0.05). The observation group had a much higher proportion of whole protein nutrient solution, nasoenteric tube feeding, protein intake ≥ 1.2 g/kg, feeding speed > 50 ml/h, and enteral nutrition temperature 36–38℃ than the control group ( P  < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis pointed out that age ≥ 60 years, NRS 2002 score > 5, duration of mechanical ventilation ≥ 3 days, APACHE II score > 20, feeding speed > 50 ml/h, protein intake ≥ 1.2 g/kg, and enteral nutrition temperature 36–38℃ were independent risk factors of enteral nutrition patients complicated with RS in ICU ( P  < 0.05). After the intervention of targeted nursing strategies, the serum levels of phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, albumin, and prealbumin were obviously elevated than before ( P  < 0.05). Conclusion Age, NRS 2002 score, mechanical ventilation time, APACHE II score, feeding speed, protein intake, and enteral nutrition temperature are all risk factors of refeeding syndrome in ICU enteral nutrition patients. Targeted nursing intervention according to the influencing factors can effectively improve the efficacy of enteral nutrition and reduce or prevent other complications.

Background: Patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 could have impaired nutrient absorption due to disruption of the normal intestinal mucosa. They are often in a state of high inflammation, increased stress and catabolism as well as a significant increase in energy and protein requirements. Therefore, timely enteral nutrition support and the provision of optimal nutrients are essential in preventing malnutrition in these patients. Aim: This review aims to evaluate the effects of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-Analysis framework and PICO. Searches were conducted in databases, including EMBASE, Health Research databases and Google Scholar. Searches were conducted from database inception until 3 February 2022. The reference lists of articles were also searched for relevant articles. Results: Seven articles were included in the systematic review, and four articles were included in the meta-analysis. Two distinct areas were identified from the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis: the impact of enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal intolerance associated with enteral nutrition. The impact of enteral nutrition was further sub-divided into early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition and enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutrition. The results of the meta-analysis of the effects of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19 showed that, overall, enteral nutrition was effective in significantly reducing the risk of mortality in these patients compared with the control with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79, 0.99, p = 0.04). Following sub-group analysis, the early enteral nutrition group also showed a significant reduction in the risk of mortality with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79, 1.00, p = 0.05). The Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) of mortality in patients with COVID-19 by early enteral nutrition was 11%. There was a significant reduction in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the early enteral nutrition group compared with the delayed enteral nutrition group. There was no significant difference between enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition in relation to mortality (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59, 1.28, p = 0.48). Concerning the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay and days on mechanical ventilation, while there were reductions in the number of days in the enteral nutrition group compared to the control (delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition), the differences were not significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The results showed that early enteral nutrition significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the risk of mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, early enteral nutrition or enteral nutrition did not significantly (p > 0.05) reduce the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay and days on mechanical ventilation compared to delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition. More studies are needed to examine the effect of early enteral nutrition in patients with COVID-19.