PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11940748

Multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blind study comparing the efficacy and gastrointestinal complications of early jejunal feeding with early gastric feeding in critically ill patients.

Juan C Montejo·Teodoro Grau·Jose Acosta·Sergio Ruiz-Santana·Mercé Planas·Abelardo García-De-Lorenzo·Alfonso Mesejo·Manuel Cervera·Carmen Sánchez-Alvarez·Rafael Núñez-Ruiz·Jorge López-Martínez·Nutritional and Metabolic Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of enteral nutrition-related gastrointestinal complications, the efficacy of diet administration, and the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in patients fed in the stomach or in the jejunum. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized multicenter study. SETTING: Intensive care units (ICUs) in 11 teaching hospitals. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients who could receive early enteral nutrition more than 5 days. INTERVENTIONS: Enteral nutrition was started in the first 36 hrs after admission. One group was fed with a nasogastric tube (GEN group) and the other in the jejunum through a dual-lumen nasogastrojejunal tube (JEN group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Gastrointestinal complications were previously defined. The efficacy of diet administration was calculated using the volume ratio (expressed as the ratio between administered and prescribed volumes). Nosocomial pneumonia was defined according the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's definitions. One hundred ten patients were included (GEN: 51, JEN: 50). Both groups were comparable in age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, and Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score. There were no differences in feeding duration, ICU length of stay, or mortality (43% vs. 38%). The JEN group had lesser gastrointestinal complications (57% vs. 24%, p <.001), mainly because of a lesser incidence of increased gastric residuals (49% vs. 2%, p <.001). Volume ratio was similar in both groups. A post hoc analysis showed that the JEN group had a higher volume ratio at day 7 than the GEN group (68% vs. 82%, p <.03) in patients from ICUs with previous experience in jejunal feeding. Both groups had a similar incidence of nosocomial pneumonia (40% vs. 32%). CONCLUSIONS: Gastrointestinal complications are less frequent in ICU patients fed in the jejunum. Nevertheless, it seems to be a necessary learning curve to achieve better results with a postpyloric access. Early enteral nutrition using a nasojejunal route seems not to be an efficacious measure to decrease nosocomial pneumonia in critically ill patients.

Explore related subjects

Critical IllnessCross InfectionEnteral NutritionFemaleGastrointestinal DiseasesHumansIntubation, GastrointestinalJejunumMaleMiddle AgedPneumoniaPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesSingle-Blind MethodStomachTreatment OutcomeClinical TrialComparative StudyJournal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Juan C Montejo, Teodoro Grau, Jose Acosta, Sergio Ruiz-Santana, Mercé Planas, Abelardo García-De-Lorenzo, Alfonso Mesejo, Manuel Cervera, Carmen Sánchez-Alvarez, Rafael Núñez-Ruiz, Jorge López-Martínez, Nutritional and Metabolic Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units. 2002. Multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blind study comparing the efficacy and gastrointestinal complications of early jejunal feeding with early gastric feeding in critically ill patients.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200204000-00013

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Erythromycin is more effective than metoclopramide in the treatment of feed intolerance in critical illness.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to a) compare the efficacy of metoclopramide and erythromycin in the treatment of feed intolerance in critical illness; and b) determine the effectiveness of "rescue" combination therapy in patients who fail monotherapy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Level III mixed medical and surgical intensive care unit. PATIENTS: Ninety mechanically ventilated, medical patients with feed-intolerance (gastric residual volume>or=250 mL). INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously four times daily (n=45) or erythromycin 200 mg intravenously twice a day (n=45) in a double-blind, randomized fashion. After the first dose, nasogastric feeding was commenced and 6-hourly nasogastric aspirates were performed. If a gastric residual volume>or=250 mL recurred on treatment, open-label, combination therapy was given. Patients were studied for 7 days. Successful feeding was defined as 6-hourly gastric residual volume<250 mL with a feeding rate>or=40 mL/hr. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Demographic data, blood glucose levels, and use of inotropes, opioids, and benzodiazepines were similar between the two groups. After 24 hrs of treatment, both monotherapies reduced the mean gastric residual volume (metoclopramide, 830+/-32 mL to 435+/-30 mL, p<.0001; erythromycin, 798+/-33 mL to 201+/-19 mL, p<.0001) and improved the proportion of patients with successful feeding (metoclopramide=62% and erythromycin=87%). Treatment with erythromycin was more effective than metoclopramide, but the effectiveness of both treatments declined rapidly over time. In patients who failed monotherapy, rescue combination therapy was highly effective (day 1=92%) and maintained its effectiveness for the study duration (day 6=67%). High pretreatment gastric residual volume was associated with poor response to prokinetic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critical illness, erythromycin is more effective than metoclopramide in treating feed intolerance, but the rapid decline in effectiveness renders both treatments suboptimal. Rescue combination therapy is highly effective, and further study is required to examine its role as the first-line therapy.

Critical Illness↗
PubMed2007

A view from the other side.

OBJECTIVE: The environment in our intensive care units (ICUs) often serves the convenience of the staff who work in the ICU, rather than the critically ill patients and their loved ones who are, as a family unit, the objects of our care. OBSERVATIONS: Critically ill patients, especially those with high acuity, require close bedside attention. Continuous monitoring, frequent physical evaluations, invasive procedures, and other demands of bedside care are just some of the processes in the ICU that require heightened attention from ICU clinicians. But the fact that we "have a lot to do" at the bedside of critically ill patients has led to an unfortunate environment in many ICUs, one in which the needs of families are not only considered secondary to the convenience of ICU personnel, but are frequently dismissed as burdensome, unreasonable, and even counter to good-quality patient care. Perhaps this is why there are reports in the literature of family concerns about less than satisfactory interactions with ICU clinicians. The attitude we have toward families is an important part of the care we offer to patients in the ICU, and it can have a profound effect on the health of our patients' families. In palliative care circles, it has long been understood that the "unit of care" is both the patient and the family. Although we are moving in that direction in critical care, many ICUs may not always reflect an appreciation of the therapeutic potential or devastating consequences of the attitudes in the ICU. CONCLUSION: The evolution of our understanding of care for critical illness should include a different approach to families and visiting hours in the ICU. One that balances the need of family members to be with their loved ones at a time of critical illness and the need of ICU clinicians to conduct efficient bedside care.

Critical Illness↗
PubMed2007

A rare disease.

Thrombocytopenia is a common finding in critically ill patients. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia is an infrequent cause of a low platelet count. Intensivists should use the diagnostic classification system developed by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis to diagnose heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. The clinical relevance of the presence of anti-heparin/platelet factor 4 complex autoantibodies in the absence of clinical heparin-induced thrombocytopenia remains unknown.

Critical Illness↗