Nasogastric feeding intolerance in the critically ill

Assessment of physiological barriers to nutrition following critical illness

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nutrition may be important for recovery from critical illness. Gastrointestinal dysfunction is a key barrier to nutrition delivery in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and metabolic rate is elevated exacerbating nutritional deficits. Whether these factors persist following ICU discharge is unknown. We assessed whether delayed gastric emptying (GE) and impaired glucose absorption persist post-ICU discharge.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted in mechanically ventilated adults at 3 time-points: in ICU (V1); on the post-ICU ward (V2); and 3-months after ICU discharge (V3); and compared to age-matched healthy volunteers. On each visit, all participants received a test-meal containing 100 ml of 1 kcal/ml liquid nutrient, labelled with 0.1 g ¹³C-octanoic acid and 3 g 3-O-Methyl-glucose (3-OMG), and breath and blood samples were collected over 240min to quantify GE (gastric emptying coefficient (GEC)), and glucose absorption (3-OMG concentration; area under the curve (AUC)). Data are mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM) and differences shown with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI).

RESULTS

Twenty-six critically ill patients completed V1 (M:F 20:6; 62.0 ± 2.9 y; BMI 29.8 ± 1.2 kg/m²; APACHE II 19.7 ± 1.9), 15 completed V2 and eight completed V3; and were compared to 10 healthy volunteers (M:F 6:4; 60.5 ± 7.5 y; BMI 26.0 ± 1.0 kg/m²). GE was significantly slower on V1 compared to health (GEC difference: -0.96 (95%CI -1.61, -0.31); and compared to V2 (-0.73 (-1.16, -0.31) and V3 (-1.03 (-1.47, -0.59). GE at V2 and V3 were not different to that in health (V2: -0.23 (-0.61, 0.14); V3: 0.10 (-0.27, 0.46)). GEC: V1: 2.64 ± 0.19; V2: 3.37 ± 0.12; V3: 3.67 ± 0.10; health: 3.60 ± 0.13. Glucose absorption (3-OMG AUC_0-240) was impaired on V1 compared to V2 (-37.9 (-64.2, -11.6)), and faster on V3 than in health (21.8 (0.14, 43.4) but absorption at V2 and V3 did not differ from health. Intestinal glucose absorption: V1: 63.8 ± 10.4; V2: 101.7 ± 7.0; V3: 111.9 ± 9.7; health: 90.7 ± 3.8.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that delayed GE and impaired intestinal glucose absorption recovers rapidly post-ICU. This requires further confirmation in a larger population. The REINSTATE trial was prospectively registered at www.anzctr.org.au.

TRIAL ID

ACTRN12618000370202.

Gastrointestinal dysmotility: evidence and clinical management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gastrointestinal dysmotility and dysfunction underlie our difficulties in providing adequate nutrition by the enteral route to our critically ill patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have quantified gastric emptying and nutrient absorption. Slow gastric emptying is common and probably mediated by cholecystokinin and reduced active ghrelin concentrations. The cause of impaired nutrient absorption is not yet fully understood but may be related to small intestinal blood flow and/or mucosal factors. The absorption of the different macronutrients may be affected in different ways both by critical illness and by therapies. A better understanding of this may optimize the design of nutrient formulations in the future. New treatment modalities for gastrointestinal dysfunction are being investigated and include small intestinal feeding, nonpharmacological options such as acupuncture, and drugs including novel motilin receptor agonists, and opioid antagonists.

SUMMARY

We are gradually developing a better understanding of how the gut works during critical illness, which has implications for optimizing the delivery of nutrition and thereby improving nutritional and clinical outcomes.

Gastrointestinal dysmotility: clinical consequences and management of the critically ill patient

Gastrointestinal dysmotility is a common feature of critical illness, with a number of significant implications that include malnutrition secondary to reduced feed tolerance and absorption, reflux and aspiration resulting in reduced lung function and ventilator-associated pneumonia, bacterial overgrowth and possible translocation causing nosocomial sepsis. Prokinetic agent administration can improve gastric emptying and caloric delivery, but its effect on nutrient absorption and clinical outcomes is, as yet, unclear. Postpyloric delivery of nutrition has not yet been demonstrated to increase caloric intake or improve clinical outcomes.