In Search of the Ideal Promotility Agent: Optimal Use of Currently Available Promotility Agents for Nutrition Therapy of the Critically Ill Patient

Understanding nursing perspective towards barriers to the optimal delivery of enteral nutrition in intensive care settings

BACKGROUND

The management process of Enteral Nutrition (EN) typically involves the interaction between a team of health care practitioners. Nurses being the closest to the patients, have crucial responsibilities and play a major role in feeding delivery along with other medical treatments. This study was conducted to investigate the perception of the nurses working in adult and paediatric intensive care Units (ICUs) regarding the EN barriers and identify the factors that influenced their perception.

METHODS

The data in this cross-sectional study was collected via online survey between 15 October 2021 and January 2022. All nurses working in adult or paediatric ICUs across Saudi Arabia were eligible to participate. The tool used for the data collection was adapted from Cahill et al. (2016) and then reviewed and modified by the researchers. The survey collected information about the demographics of the nurses, and it included 24 potential EN barriers where the participants were asked to rate their importance on a scale from 1 to 5. Descriptive statistics were performed to describe the variables, univariant analysis were performed to compare the perceptions of the nurses regarding the EN barriers based on their characteristics followed by stepwise linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 136 nurses working in adult and paediatric ICUs were included in this study. The results showed that the most important barriers as perceived by the nurses was "Frequent displacement of feeding tube, requiring reinsertion" [3.29 ± 1.28], "Delays in initiating motility agents in patients not tolerating enteral nutrition" [3.27 ± 1.24] and "Enteral formula not available on the unit". [3.27 ± 1.24]. Our results showed that the responses of the participants statistically varied based on their work settings, gender, region, and educational level for some items in the survey (P-value ≤ 0.05). In the regression analysis, gender was the only variable statistically influenced the total Likert rating scores of the participants (r = -0.213, p-value = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

This study identified several barriers that exist in the nursing practice of EN in critical care settings. There are distinct differences in the perception of the nurses to these barriers based on their characteristics. Understanding such differences is important for implementing future strategies for units that needed the most help in prioritizing EN delivery.

Evaluation of gastric motility through surface electrogastrography in critically ill septic patients. Comparison of metoclopramide and domperidone effects: A pilot randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Critically ill patients present with a broad spectrum of gastrointestinal motility disorders that affect the digestive tract. Our aim was to compare the effect of two prokinetic drugs on gastric electrical rhythm in critically ill septic patients, measured through surface electrogastrography (EGG).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective triple-blinded randomized study was conducted on 36 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with the diagnosis of septic shock. They were randomized to receive metoclopramide or domperidone. We assessed dominant frequency (DF), percentage distribution over time, and dominant power (DP), which represents the strength of contraction, before and after administration of the study drugs.

RESULTS

Reliable electrogastrograms were achieved in all patients. In relation to the distribution of DF over time, 64% of patients had dysrhythmia, the mean baseline DF was 2.9 cpm, and the mean DP was 56.5μv After drug administration, 58% of the patients had dysrhythmia, the mean DF increased to 5.7 cpm (P<.05), and the DP did not change (57.4μv²). There were no significant differences between drugs. In the metoclopramide group, the baseline DF was 2.1 cpm and the baseline DP was 26.1μv². The post-drug values increased to 5.4 cpm and 34.1μv², respectively. In the domperidone group, the baseline DF was 3.7 cpm and the baseline DP was 86.9μv². After drug administration, the DF increased to 6.1 cpm and the DP decreased to 83.5μv².

CONCLUSIONS

Both metoclopramide and domperidone similarly increased the DF of gastric pacemaker activity and improved gastric motility by restoring a normogastric pattern. Gastric dysmotility is frequent in septic patients.