Cargando…

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

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 bolu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heffernan, Aaron J., Talekar, C., Henain, M., Purcell, L., Palmer, M., White, H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9594889/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36284334
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04140-8
_version_ 1784815532508184576
author Heffernan, Aaron J.
Talekar, C.
Henain, M.
Purcell, L.
Palmer, M.
White, H.
author_facet Heffernan, Aaron J.
Talekar, C.
Henain, M.
Purcell, L.
Palmer, M.
White, H.
author_sort Heffernan, Aaron J.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9594889
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95948892022-10-26 Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis Heffernan, Aaron J. Talekar, C. Henain, M. Purcell, L. Palmer, M. White, H. Crit Care Research 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. BioMed Central 2022-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9594889/ /pubmed/36284334 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04140-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Heffernan, Aaron J.
Talekar, C.
Henain, M.
Purcell, L.
Palmer, M.
White, H.
Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9594889/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36284334
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04140-8
work_keys_str_mv AT heffernanaaronj comparisonofcontinuousversusintermittententeralfeedingincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT talekarc comparisonofcontinuousversusintermittententeralfeedingincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT henainm comparisonofcontinuousversusintermittententeralfeedingincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT purcelll comparisonofcontinuousversusintermittententeralfeedingincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT palmerm comparisonofcontinuousversusintermittententeralfeedingincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT whiteh comparisonofcontinuousversusintermittententeralfeedingincriticallyillpatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis