Continuous versus bolus tube feeds: Does the modality affect glycemic variability, tube feeding volume, caloric intake, or insulin utilization?

How to administer a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) feed

RATIONALE AND KEY POINTS

In hospitals and nursing homes, the maintenance of feeding tubes used in enteral nutrition, such as percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) (the placement of a feeding tube directly into the stomach through the abdominal wall), is often a nursing responsibility. Therefore, it is vital nurses understand how to care for this patient group safely and effectively. Incorrect PEG procedures, inadequate infection prevention and control practices, and a lack of appropriate stoma care, can negatively affect patient outcomes. Nurses administering enteral feeding via PEG must have the knowledge and skills required to do so safely and must work within their level of competence. • Enteral nutrition such as PEG aims to meet the nutritional requirements of patients who have an intact gastrointestinal (GI) tract but whose oral intake is inadequate. • Management of the PEG feeding tube and care of the stoma site are vital, and nurses should be able to recognise common complications of PEG feeding. • A non-touch technique should be used when administering enteral feed via PEG to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination. REFLECTIVE ACTIVITY: 'How to' articles can help to update your practice and ensure it remains evidence-based. Apply this article to your practice. Reflect on and write a short account of: • How this article might improve your practice when administering enteral feed via PEG. • How you could use this information to educate nursing students or colleagues about safe enteral feeding with PEG.

Intermittent enteral nutrition shortens the time to achieve nutritional goals in critically ill patients

Nutritional support is associated with improved clinical outcomes in critically ill patients; however, loss of muscle mass during critical illness leads to weakness, delayed return to work, and increased healthcare consumption. Animal data have suggested that intermittent feeding decreases protein catabolism. This study was aimed at determining whether the mode of enteral nutrition administration might lead to differences in meeting nutritional goals, tolerance, and complications. A prospective, randomized, single-center clinical trial was conducted in four intensive care units in the Czech Republic. Critically ill adult patients with high nutritional risk were randomized to continuous or intermittent enteral nutrition administration through a tolerance-driven protocol. The primary outcome was the time to reach the energetic target. Secondary outcomes included assessment of tolerance (high gastric residual volume, vomitus, and diarrhea), complications (aspiration or ventilator-associated pneumonia), and 28-day mortality. A total of 300 patients were randomized, and 294 were analyzed: 148 in the continuous arm and 146 in the intermittent arm. Regarding the primary outcome, log-rank test indicated that the intermittent group, compared with continuous group, had a statistically significantly shorter time (p = 0.009) and greater diarrhea occurrence (7 (4.7%) vs. 16 (11%), p = 0.049). No statistically significant differences in ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence (18 (12.2%) vs. 18 (12.3%), p = 0.965), 28-day mortality (46 (31.1%) vs. 40 (27.4%), p = 0.488), and other secondary outcomes were observed between groups. Thus, intermittent enteral nutrition was superior to continuous enteral nutrition in terms of time to reach the energetic target with the tolerance-driven administration protocol but was associated with higher diarrhea incidence. No statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes were observed.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing three-times-a-day intermittent enteral postural feeding to continuous enteral feeding among mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermittent feeding versus continuous feeding used different methods, employed shorter fasting intervals, ignored patients' posture in bed during feeds, and showed mixed results. Prolonged fasting intervals are hypothesized to have several benefits. Additionally, there is evidence for more efficient gastric emptying in the right lateral position. In this multicenter RCT, we aimed to compare the effects of three-times-a-day gastric feeding while in the right lateral tilt position (intermittent postural feeding) versus standard continuous gastric feeding (standard feeding) on gastrointestinal intolerance and mortality among mechanically ventilated patients in ICU.

METHODS

Adult ICU patients with gastric feeding tube in-situ and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to either intermittent postural feeding group or to the standard feeding group. The feeding formula, target daily feed volume and posture turns were determined as per standard practice for all patients. Primary outcome was an incidence rate per 100 patient-days of gastrointestinal intolerance, a composite outcome of vomiting, diarrhea or constipation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause hospital mortality, gastrointestinal intolerance-free days, ventilator-free days, episodes of vomiting or diarrhea per patient, and mean diet volume ratio (diet received/diet prescribed).

RESULTS

At five multidisciplinary ICUs, 120 mechanically ventilated, adult ICU patients (median age 65 years, 60% males) were randomly allocated to intermittent postural feeding (n = 61) and standard feeding (n = 59). The primary outcome did not differ between intermittent feeding arm versus standard arm (8.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.9-11.8, versus 6.2, 95% CI: 4.1-9.1 per 100 patient-days; p = 0.23). Gastrointestinal intolerance-free days until day 14 were similar (6 [2-8] versus 5 [2-10]; p = 0.68) in both groups. Number of episodes per patient of vomiting, diarrhea, or constipation also did not differ in between groups. All-cause hospital mortality between intermittent feeding arm versus standard arm was 20% versus 31% (p = 0.17). There were no significant between-group differences in any of the other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Intermittent gastric feeds delivered three-times-a-day while in the right lateral tilt position among mechanically ventilated patients was as well tolerated as the continuous enteral feeding. A definitive RCT to assess other clinically important outcomes is justified.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12616000212459 https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=365526&isReview=true.

Trends and challenges in home enteral feeding methods for children with gastrointestinal disorders: an expert review on bolus feeding delivery methods

INTRODUCTION

New evidence supports the benefits of bolus feeding for children receiving home enteral feeding (HEN). Current home methods of bolus feeding have certain limitations, particularly in mobile or restless patients. Therefore, innovative delivery methods have been introduced to provide more flexible methods of reducing feeding time and formula handling.

AREAS COVERED

This manuscript presents an expert review of the updates in HEN for children and the results of an online user experience questionnaire about an innovative new cap-based bolus feeding system. A literature bibliographic search was conducted on Medline via PubMed up to September 2023 to collect relevant studies. We presented recent evidence demonstrating a dramatic increase in HEN use among children requiring EN and its benefits on patients' nutritional status and quality of life. In addition, the article examined the clinical and social benefits of bolus feeding and current challenges in delivery methods. We described the benefits of the new system and its user experience.

EXPERT OPINION

The uses and indications for bolus feeding in HEN are increasing among children. However, there are still some unmet needs regarding traditional delivery methods. Innovative techniques can improve flexibility, reduce feeding time, and improve user experience and quality of life.

Clinical efficacy of enteral nutrition feeding modalities in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

In intensive care units (ICUs), both continuous and intermittent feeding are commonly used for early enteral nutrition (EN). However, whether continuous feeding is a preferable feeding modality compared to intermittent feeding remains unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy of both EN feeding modalities in critically ill patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception dates to December 29, 2022. The search did not involve language restrictions (PROSPERO CRD42022371756). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous feeding and intermittent feeding in critically ill patients in ICUs were included.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs involving 785 patients. Compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding was associated with a lower mortality rate (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47, 0.98; p = 0.04) but a higher risk of constipation (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02, 2.43; p = 0.04). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for mortality rate presented a cumulative Z-curve crossing the traditional boundary, but the curve did not cross the TSA boundary for benefit. No significant differences were found in the aspiration/pneumonia rate (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.51, 2.75; p = 0.69), diarrhea rate (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.16; p = 0.26), or increased gastric residual volumes (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.90; p = 0.86) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the low certainty of evidence, compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding may reduce the mortality rate in critically ill patients in ICU. Additional studies are needed to provide more evidence and validate the findings.

Night fasting as an alternative to improve nutritional support and glycaemic control in hospitalised patients with exclusive enteral nutrition

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition (EN) assists in the nutritional status of hospitalised patients unable to feed orally. The aim of this study was to determine which method-continuous EN or discontinuous EN, a diet in which the infusion is discontinued for 4h during the night,-is more effective in meeting nutrient recommendations and improving glycaemic control and biochemical parameters related to protein anabolism.

METHODS

Patients were divided into two groups: discontinuous (EN administered in mL/h, 18h/day, 4-h night fasting) and continuous (EN administered in mL/h, 22h/day). All patients with EN receive the diet over a 22-h daily period, in which the diet is suspended for two hours/day for daily hospital routines such as bathing, and physiotherapy, and followed for seven days. Evaluated data: prescribed and administered volume, calories, protein, and fibre; capillary blood glucose; erythrogram; serum albumin.

RESULTS

52 patients were followed-up, with 23 (44.2%) in the discontinuous group and 29 (55.8%) in the continuous group. Compared with the continuous group, the discontinuous group received volumes closer to those prescribed, equal or higher calories, and more protein. The capillary glucose values were within the reference range in the discontinuous group, while the continuous group presented elevated values. Both groups presented hypoalbuminaemia, haemoglobin, and haematocrit below the reference values; however, in the discontinuous group, the serum albumin values improved during hospitalisation relative to the continuous.

CONCLUSIONS

The method involving discontinuation of EN for 4h was more effective in meeting nutrient recommendations compared with the continuous method. Additionally, in the discontinuous group, we observed a better control of glycaemia when compared to that of the continuous group.

Continuous versus Intermittent Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Children: A Systematic Review

Administration of enteral nutrition (EN) in critically ill pediatric patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) constitutes a major challenge due to the increased risk of complications, as well as the lack of well-trained healthcare professionals. EN is usually delivered via cyclic, continuous, or intermittent feeding; however, a number of potential barriers have been reported in the literature regarding different feeding regimens. The purpose of this review was to assess the effectiveness of continuous and intermittent bolus feeding on critically ill children. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and a clinical trial registry up to September 2022, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the English language. Four studies met the inclusion criteria with a total population of 288 patients admitted to the PICU. Three studies were rated with a high risk of bias and one with some concerns. There was high heterogeneity between the studies in regard to the reporting of outcomes. Three studies measured the total time needed to reach prescribed caloric intake with conflicting results, while two studies evaluated the length of stay (LOS) in PICU with no difference between the two arms. One study assessed the time weaning from mechanical ventilation, favoring the bolus group. No data were provided for gastric residual volume (GRV), anthropometric measurements, and biochemical markers. Additional randomized trials with better methodology are needed to assess the efficacy of the two enteral feeding regimens in critically ill PICU patients.

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 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.

Effect of different feeding methods on gastrointestinal function in critical patients (DFM-GFC): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Enteral nutrition is a major pathway of nutrition for patients requiring critical care. However, it remains unclear whether intermittent or continuous feeding is the better approach, especially after nasogastric enteral nutrition via a gastric tube. Therefore, this randomized controlled clinical study was designed to observe the effects of different methods on critically ill patients.

Methods

Different Feeding Methods on Gastrointestinal Function of Critical patients (DFM-GFC) is a randomized clinical study that will be performed to assess the effects of three feeding methods on critically ill patients. A total of 90 critically ill patients will be equally randomized into three groups: continuous feeding, cyclic feeding, and intermittent feeding. The patients will be administered a gastrointestinal nutrition preparation over 24 h via a gastric tube or over 16 h via an intermittent pump. The primary outcome is the mean duration (days) to reach the caloric goal in each group. Secondary outcomes include the rate of onset of gastric residual, abdominal pressure, the rate of onset pneumonia, and the proportion of individuals achieving the caloric goal. Additionally, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mortality rate at 28 days post-enrolment will be evaluated.

Discussion

This study will observe the effects of different feeding methods on various parameters, such as the energy target and gastrointestinal motility, in critically ill patients to improve quality of life and reduce the case fatality rate. The purpose of this study is to explore whether there is a more effective, safer and cost-efficient feeding method for the clinical treatment of critically ill patients.

Trial registration

ID: NCT04224883, ClinicalTrials.gov, registered January 9, 2020

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06807-7.

Intermittent feeding and circadian rhythm in critical illness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Circadian rhythms, i.e., periodic oscillations in internal biological processes, modulate metabolic processes such as hormonal signalling, nutrient absorption, and xenobiotic detoxification. Meal timing is a strong entraining cue for peripheral clocks in various organs, and eating out of circadian phases can impair glucose, gastrointestinal, and muscle metabolism. Sleep/wake cycles and circadian rhythms are extremely disrupted during critical illness. Timing of nutritional support may help preserve circadian rhythms and improve post-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) recovery. This review summarises circadian disruptors during ICU admission and evaluates the potential benefits of intermittent feeding on metabolism and circadian rhythms.

RECENT FINDINGS

Rhythmic expression of core clock genes becomes rapidly disturbed during critical illness and remains disturbed for weeks. Intermittent, bolus, and cyclic enteral feeding have been directly compared to routine continuous feeding, yet no benefits on glycaemic control, gastrointestinal tolerance, and muscle mass have been observed and impacts of circadian clocks remain untested.

SUMMARY

Aligning timing of nutritional intake, physical activity, and/or medication with circadian rhythms are potential strategies to reset peripheral circadian rhythms and may enhance ICU recovery but is not proven beneficial yet. Therefore, selecting intermittent feeding over continuous feeding must be balanced against the pros and cons of clinical practice.

Foods for Special Medical Purposes in Home Enteral Nutrition-Clinical Practice Experience. Multicenter Study

Background

Enteral nutrition (EN) with foods for special medical purposes (FSMP) is recommended for most patients on home enteral nutrition (HEN). Although there are disease-specific guidelines for energy, protein, and micronutrient provision, only a few studies are showing real-life experience in the long-term use of FSMP.

Methods

In a multicenter study, the influence of the FSMP composition and administration technique (bolus vs. continuous) on protein and energy provision in HEN was analyzed. Provision of vitamins and minerals was compared to recommended daily allowance (RDA) and upper tolerable limit (UL).

Results

Approximately, 772 patients on HEN, mostly (88.6%) with oncological and neurological diseases, were enrolled. The patients on standard FSMP received less protein and energy than those on hypercaloric and protein enriched despite receiving higher volumes of EN (p < 0.05). No differences were observed in jejunal feeding with oligomeric vs. polymeric FSMP in terms of energy, protein, and volume. Continuous gastric feeding provided more protein, energy, and volume vs. bolus feeding (p < 0.05). Significant number of patients received less than 100% RDA of vitamin D (50.5%), vitamin B3 (49%), vitamin K (21.8%), vitamin B5 (64.3%), vitamin B9 (60%). Majority of the patients received less than 100% RDA of sodium (80.2%), potassium (99%), chloride (98%), calcium (67%), magnesium (87%), fluoride (99%), and iodine (43%). Approximately, 43.63% of cancer and 49.9% of neurological patients received less than 1 g/kg/day of protein and 51.7% of cancer and 55.5% of neurological patients received less than 25 kcal/kg/day.

Conclusion

Awareness of the available compositions of FSMP and advantageous profiles of specific diets may lead to the implementation of recommendations for EN. HEN professionals need to analyze all the patient's needs and requirements to provide more tailored matching of nutritional support.

Safety and Efficacy of Continuous or Intermittent Enteral Nutrition in ICU Patients: Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence

The best mode of delivering enteral nutrition (EN) in ICU is still debated: several consensus guidelines (ASPEN and ESPEN) suggest that EN in ICU should be preferably delivered continuously rather intermittently but some authors highlight that the first is unphysiological. The aim of this systematic review (SR) is to summarize available clinical evidence related to safety and efficacy of continuous enteral nutrition (C-EN) or intermittent enteral nutrition (I-EN) in ICU patients, in relation to appropriated supply on nutritional status, gastrointestinal symptoms or tolerance, risks on respiratory tract infections. A literature search of Pubmed, EMBASE and Google Scholar was performed comparing C-EN vs I-EN and 4196 published studies were screened. Nineteen studies were selected for this SR reporting types of ICU, nutritional protocols and study period. Effects of C-EN vs I-EN were presented according to the impact on: nutritional status, digestive tract and respiratory tract. The contrasting results confirmed that the optimal delivering mode of EN remains controversial. Future studies dedicated to identify the benefits and limitations of C-EN or I-EN should be realized. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent enteral nutrition in critically ill adults

BACKGROUND

Continuous Enteral Nutrition (CEN) remains standard practice in Intensive Care Units (ICUs) worldwide. Intermittent Enteral Nutrition (IEN) may be a suitable alternative method. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the safety, tolerance, and effectiveness of IEN compared to CEN in critically ill adults in the ICU.

METHODS

Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and Google Scholar were searched for studies published up until 30^th April 2020, along with manual searches in bibliographies. Eligible studies were trials that compared CEN versus IEN feeding in the ICU, and reported on at least one of the relevant outcomes - nutritional intake, gastric residual volume (GRV), aspiration pneumonia, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal distension, glycemic variability. Secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS) and mortality. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess methodological quality.

RESULTS

Ten studies with 664 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The majority of studies had an overall 'High' risk of bias. Incidence of vomiting was significantly higher in CEN as compared to IEN groups (Risk Ratio 2.76; 95% CI, 1.23 - 6.23). There were no significant differences between CEN and IEN groups for nutritional intake, GRV, the incidence of aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, abdominal distension, ICU LOS, and mortality. Definition and reporting of outcome measures were not standardized across studies, hence this heterogeneity limits generalisability of results.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the safety, tolerance, and effectiveness of CEN and IEN were found to be comparable. Future studies should explore monitoring larger sample sizes to determine best feeding practices in ICU. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Prospective randomised trial of bolus vs. continuous regime of jejunostomy feed

Enteral alimentation can be administered continuously, cyclically, intermittently, or by a bolus technique. Current literature does not suggest superiority of any one regime. Most studies have used nasogastric feeds, little is known about the outcome of jejunal feeding.This study compares the efficiency and safety of bolus and continuous jejunostomy feeding. 46 adults undergoing a feeding jejunostomy for nutritional support or as an adjunct to a major upper GI surgery, were randomised to bolus feeding (BF group, n = 24) and continuous feeding (CF group, n = 22). Demographic, anthropometric, and laboratory parameters were measured preoperatively and on post-operative days (POD) 3, 7, 15, and 30. These parameters; as well as nutritional and functional outcomes, and complications at POD 30; were comparable in both groups. Both groups tolerated jejunal feeds well. Bolus feeding is simple, inexpensive, and permits daily physical activities. Hence it may be preferred over continuous jejunostomy feeding for enteral alimentation.

Comparison of sequential feeding and continuous feeding on the blood glucose of critically ill patients: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

Background:

Glucose control is an important aspect in managing critically ill patients. The goal of this study was to compare the effects of sequential feeding (SF) and continuous feeding (CF) on the blood glucose of critically ill patients.

Methods:

A non-inferiority randomized controlled trial was adopted in this study. A total of 62 patients who were fed enteral nutritional suspension through gastric tubes were enrolled. After achieving 80% of the nutrition target calories (25 kcal·kg⁻¹·day⁻¹) through CF, the patients were then randomly assigned into SF and CF groups. In the SF group, the feeding/fasting time was reasonably determined according to the circadian rhythm of the human body as laid out in traditional Chinese medicine theory. The total daily dosage of the enteral nutritional suspension was equally distributed among three time periods of 7 to 9 o’clock, 11 to 13 o’clock, and 17 to 19 o’clock. The enteral nutritional suspension in each time period was pumped at a uniform rate within 2 h by an enteral feeding pump. In the CF group, patients received CF at a constant velocity by an enteral feeding pump throughout the study. Blood glucose values at five points (6:00/11:00/15:00/21:00/1:00) were monitored and recorded for seven consecutive days after randomization. Enteral feeding intolerance was also recorded. Non-inferiority testing was adopted in this study, the chi-square test or Fisher test was used for qualitative data, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for quantitative data to determine differences between groups. In particular, a repeated measure one-way analysis of variance was used to identify whether changes in glucose value variables across the time points were different between the two groups.

Results:

There were no significant demographic or physiological differences between the SF and CF groups (P > 0.050). The average glucose level in SF was not higher than that in CF (8.8 [7.3–10.3] vs. 10.7 [9.1–12.1] mmol/L, Z = −2.079, P for non-inferiority = 0.019). Hyperglycemia incidence of each patient was more common in the CF group than that in the SF group (38.4 [19.1–63.7]% vs. 11.8 [3.0–36.7]%, Z = −2.213, P = 0.027). Hypoglycemia was not found in either group. Moreover, there was no significant difference during the 7 days in the incidence of feeding intolerance (P > 0.050).

Conclusions:

In this non-inferiority study, the average blood glucose in SF was not inferior to that in CF. The feeding intolerance in SF was similar to that in CF. SF may be as safe as CF for critically ill patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03439618; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03439618

From Best Evidence to Best Practice: Enteral Nutrition from Continuous Nasal Feeding in Stroke Patients

Background

Best evidence regarding enteral nutrition from continuous nasal feeding in stroke patients is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the best evidence of continuous nasal feeding in stroke patients and translate the evidence into clinical practice.

Methods

This study utilized the standard procedures of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) evidence-based nursing centers’ clinical evidence-practice application system. The baseline assessment of stroke patients in the neurology ward was conducted. A pre- and post-implementation audit approach was used in this study and adopted the Getting Research into Practice program. We analyzed the compliance of nurses with best practice and its impact on patients’ gastrointestinal function and complications, aspiration, aspiration pneumonia, nurses’ daily workload of nasal feeding, and the length of hospitalization before and after implementing the evidence-based strategies.

Results

After application of the evidence-based strategies, nurses’ compliance with best practice was improved. The incidence of patients’ gastrointestinal complications including vomit (χ2 = 5.195, P=0.023), palirrhea (χ2 = 4.216, P=0.039), diarrhea (χ2 = 4.514, P=0.042), constipation (χ2 = 5.535, P=0.035) and gastric retention (χ2 = 4.541, P=0.042) decreased significantly after the application of the best evidence. The working time of nurses undergoing nasal feeding decreased from 23.71 ±3.22 min to 7.73 ±1.14 min (P =0.000) and the length of patient’s hospitalization decreased from 35.63 ±4.45 days to 35.00 ±3.70 days (P=0.534). The rate of aspiration, aspiration pneumonia did not show a significant difference after implementation of the evidence-based strategies.

Conclusion

The results revealed that the evidence-based practice of continuous nasal feeding in stroke patients is an effective method to improve nursing quality and reduce gastrointestinal complications, which was worthy of clinical application.

Protein delivery in intermittent and continuous enteral nutrition with a protein-rich formula in critically ill patients-a protocol for the prospective randomized controlled proof-of-concept Protein Bolus Nutrition (Pro BoNo) study

Background

Critically ill patients rapidly develop muscle wasting resulting in sarcopenia, long-term disability and higher mortality. Bolus nutrition (30–60 min period), whilst having a similar incidence of aspiration as continuous feeding, seems to provide metabolic benefits through increased muscle protein synthesis due to higher leucine peaks.

To date, clinical evidence on achievement of nutritional goals and influence of bolus nutrition on skeletal muscle metabolism in ICU patients is lacking. The aim of the Pro BoNo study (Protein Bolus Nutrition) is to compare intermittent and continuous enteral feeding with a specific high-protein formula. We hypothesise that target quantity of protein is reached earlier (within 36 h) by an intermittent feeding protocol with a favourable influence on muscle protein synthesis.

Methods

Pro BoNo is a prospective randomised controlled study aiming to compare the impact of intermittent and continuous enteral feeding on preventing muscle wasting in 60 critically ill patients recruited during the first 48 h after ICU admission. The primary outcome measure is the time until the daily protein target (≥ 1.5 g protein/kg bodyweight/24 h) is achieved. Secondary outcome measures include tolerance of enteral feeding and evolution of glucose, urea and IGF-1. Ultrasound and muscle biopsy of the quadriceps will be performed.

Discussion

The Basel Pro BoNo study aims to collect innovative data on the effect of intermittent enteral feeding of critically ill patients on muscle wasting.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03587870. Registered on July 16, 2018. Swiss National Clinical Trials Portal SNCTP000003234. Last updated on July 24, 2019.

Towards a fasting-mimicking diet for critically ill patients: the pilot randomized crossover ICU-FM-1 study

BACKGROUND

In two recent randomized controlled trials, withholding parenteral nutrition early in critical illness improved outcome as compared to early up-to-calculated-target nutrition, which may be explained by beneficial effects of fasting. Outside critical care, fasting-mimicking diets were found to maintain fasting-induced benefits while avoiding prolonged starvation. It is unclear whether critically ill patients can develop a fasting response after a short-term nutrient interruption. In this randomized crossover pilot study, we investigated whether 12-h nutrient interruption initiates a metabolic fasting response in prolonged critically ill patients. As a secondary objective, we studied the feasibility of monitoring autophagy in blood samples.

METHODS

In a single-center study in 70 prolonged critically ill patients, 12-h up-to-calculated-target feeding was alternated with 12-h fasting on day 8 ± 1 in ICU, in random order. Blood samples were obtained at the start of the study, at the crossover point, and at the end of the 24-h study period. Primary endpoints were a fasting-induced increase in serum bilirubin and decrease in insulin requirements to maintain normoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), serum urea, plasma beta-hydroxybutyrate (BOH), and mRNA and protein markers of autophagy in whole blood and isolated white blood cells. To obtain a healthy reference, mRNA and protein markers of autophagy were assessed in whole blood and isolated white blood cells of 23 matched healthy subjects in fed and fasted conditions. Data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA, Fisher's exact test, or Mann-Whitney U test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

A 12-h nutrient interruption significantly increased serum bilirubin and BOH and decreased insulin requirements and serum IGF-I (all p ≤ 0.001). Urea was not affected. BOH was already increased from 4 h fasting onwards. Autophagic markers in blood samples were largely unaffected by fasting in patients and healthy subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

A 12-h nutrient interruption initiated a metabolic fasting response in prolonged critically ill patients, which opens perspectives for the development of a fasting-mimicking diet. Blood samples may not be a good readout of autophagy at the tissue level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN98404761. Registered 3 May 2017.

Intermittent or continuous feeding: any difference during the first week?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To balance theoretical pros and cons of intermittent feeding, in light of the current nutritional management early during critical illness.

RECENT FINDINGS

Less aggressive nutrient administration is clinically superior in acute critical illness. This counterintuitive clinical finding may be explained by nutrient restriction activating autophagy, a process that clears intracellular damage. Intermittent feeding holds numerous theoretical benefits, such as activation of autophagy, preservation of the circadian rhythm, increased protein synthesis, and enhanced endogenous fatty acids release. RCTs investigating intermittent feeding in the ICU, however, are the most often limited to evaluation of gastrointestinal complications. Current guidelines advocate against the use of intermittent feeding, based on lack of benefit and increased risk of diarrhea, as revealed by a meta-analysis.

SUMMARY

Benefits of intermittent feeding in the ICU are today speculative, yet its potential impact may reach far beyond the gastrointestinal tract. Only adequately powered RCTs, evaluating both gastrointestinal tolerance, metabolic impact and patient-centered effects of intermittent feeding will allow to adopt or abort this nutritional strategy.

Clinical Nutrition in Critical Care Medicine - Guideline of the German Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM)

PURPOSE

Enteral and parenteral nutrition of adult critically ill patients varies in terms of the route of nutrient delivery, the amount and composition of macro- and micronutrients, and the choice of specific, immune-modulating substrates. Variations of clinical nutrition may affect clinical outcomes. The present guideline provides clinicians with updated consensus-based recommendations for clinical nutrition in adult critically ill patients who suffer from at least one acute organ dysfunction requiring specific drug therapy and/or a mechanical support device (e.g., mechanical ventilation) to maintain organ function.

METHODS

The former guidelines of the German Society for Nutritional Medicine (DGEM) were updated according to the current instructions of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) valid for a S2k-guideline. According to the S2k-guideline classification, no systematic review of the available evidence was required to make recommendations, which, therefore, do not state evidence- or recommendation grades. Nevertheless, we considered and commented the evidence from randomized-controlled trials, meta-analyses and observational studies with adequate sample size and high methodological quality (until May 2018) as well as from currently valid guidelines of other societies. The liability of each recommendation was described linguistically. Each recommendation was finally validated and consented through a Delphi process.

RESULTS

In the introduction the guideline describes a) the pathophysiological consequences of critical illness possibly affecting metabolism and nutrition of critically ill patients, b) potential definitions for different disease phases during the course of illness, and c) methodological shortcomings of clinical trials on nutrition. Then, we make 69 consented recommendations for essential, practice-relevant elements of clinical nutrition in critically ill patients. Among others, recommendations include the assessment of nutrition status, the indication for clinical nutrition, the timing and route of nutrient delivery, and the amount and composition of substrates (macro- and micronutrients); furthermore, we discuss distinctive aspects of nutrition therapy in obese critically ill patients and those treated with extracorporeal support devices.

CONCLUSION

The current guideline provides clinicians with up-to-date recommendations for enteral and parenteral nutrition of adult critically ill patients who suffer from at least one acute organ dysfunction requiring specific drug therapy and/or a mechanical support device (e.g., mechanical ventilation) to maintain organ function. The period of validity of the guideline is approximately fixed at five years (2018-2023).

Continuous or intermittent feeding: pros and cons

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There has been a recent shift in the focus of providing nutrition support to critically ill adults towards enhancing recovery and promoting survivorship. With this has come an evaluation of our current approaches to nutrition support, which includes whether continuous feeding is optimal, particularly for reducing muscle wasting, but also for managing blood glucose levels and feeding intolerance and at the organizational level. This review will discuss the pros and cons of using intermittent and continuous feeding relating to several aspects of the management of critically ill adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

Few studies have investigated the effect of intermittent feeding over continuous feeding. Overall, intermittent feeding has not been shown to increase glucose variability or gastrointestinal intolerance, two of the reasons continuous feeding is the preferred method. A current study investigating the effect of intermittent vs. continuous feeding is awaited to provide insight into the effect of muscle wasting.

SUMMARY

Although there are limited studies investigating the safety and efficacy of an intermittent rather than continuous feeding regimen in critically ill adults, there are several theoretical advantages. Further studies should investigate these and in the meantime, feeding regimens should be devised based on individual patient factors.

ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit

Following the new ESPEN Standard Operating Procedures, the previous guidelines to provide best medical nutritional therapy to critically ill patients have been updated. These guidelines define who are the patients at risk, how to assess nutritional status of an ICU patient, how to define the amount of energy to provide, the route to choose and how to adapt according to various clinical conditions. When to start and how to progress in the administration of adequate provision of nutrients is also described. The best determination of amount and nature of carbohydrates, fat and protein are suggested. Special attention is given to glutamine and omega-3 fatty acids. Particular conditions frequently observed in intensive care such as patients with dysphagia, frail patients, multiple trauma patients, abdominal surgery, sepsis, and obesity are discussed to guide the practitioner toward the best evidence based therapy. Monitoring of this nutritional therapy is discussed in a separate document.

Volume-Based vs Rate-Based Enteral Nutrition in the Intensive Care Unit: Impact on Nutrition Delivery and Glycemic Control

BACKGROUND

Underfeeding with enteral nutrition (EN) is prevalent in intensive care units (ICUs) and associated with negative outcomes. This study evaluated the impact of volume-based EN (VBEN) vs rate-based EN (RBEN) on delivery of prescribed energy and protein, and glycemic control (GC).

METHODS

This retrospective study included adult patients who require mechanical ventilation within 48 hours of ICU admission and with an RBEN (n = 85) or VBEN (n = 86) order for ≥3 consecutive days during the first 12 ICU days.

RESULTS

Patients receiving VBEN, vs RBEN, received more prescribed energy (RBEN, 67.6%; VBEN, 79.6%; P < .001) and protein (RBEN, 68.6%; VBEN, 79.3%; P < .001). Multiple linear regression analyses confirmed VBEN was significantly associated with an 8.9% increase in energy (P = .002) and 7.7% increase in protein (P = .004) received, after adjusting for age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, duration of and initiation day for EN, and ICU admission location. Presence of hyperglycemia (P = .40) and glycemic variability (GV) (P = .99) were not different between the 2 groups. After adjusting for age, body mass index, diabetes history, primary diagnosis, and percent of days receiving corticosteroids, GC outcomes (presence of hyperglycemia, P = .27; GV, P = .67) remained unrelated to EN order type in multivariable regression models.

CONCLUSION

VBEN, compared with RBEN, was associated with increased energy and protein delivery without adversely affecting GC. These results suggest VBEN is an effective, safe strategy to enhance EN delivery in the ICU.

A more physiological feeding process in ICU: Intermittent infusion with semi-solid nutrients (CONSORT-compliant)

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to determine whether the application of semi-solid nutrients could increase the efficiency of the enteral nutrition (EN), which was measured daily by administered volume of nutrition/prescribed volume of nutrition.

METHODS

A total of 28 subjects were finally enrolled in the study and randomized to receive either intermittent feeding (IF) or intermittent feeding with semi-solid nutrients (IS). Three major parameters concerning EN were evaluated in this study: the daily dosage prescribed by doctor, the actual dosage received by subjects, and the acute complications such as diarrhea, vomiting, regurgitation, bowel distension, and lung infection.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences in NRS-2002, and acute gastrointestinal injury between both groups. The IS group (0.98 ± 0.06, P < .01) could receive higher percentage of daily prescribed calories compared to IF (0.73 ± 0.15). The total caloric intake during the first 3 days was higher in IS (2589.29 ± 844.02 vs. 1685.71 ± 388.00, P < .01). The incidence of feeding intolerance (FI) was lower in the IS group (2/14) compared with IF (8/14). However, semi-solid nutrients did not decrease the length of stay, lung infection, or 30-day mortality. Similarly, there was no difference in glycemic variability and stress hyperglycemia.

CONCLUSIONS

In our cohort of critically ill subjects, the efficiency of the EN was increased by IS, which might be related to the improvement of FI (NCT03017079).

Methods of Enteral Nutrition Administration in Critically Ill Patients: Continuous, Cyclic, Intermittent, and Bolus Feeding

There are several methods of enteral nutrition (EN) administration, including continuous, cyclic, intermittent, and bolus techniques, which can be used either alone or in combination. Continuous feeding involves hourly administration of EN over 24 hours assisted by a feeding pump; cyclic feeding involves administration of EN over a time period of <24 hours generally assisted by a feeding pump; intermittent feeding involves administration of EN over 20-60 minutes every 4-6 hours via pump assist or gravity assist; and bolus feeding involves administration of EN over a 4- to 10-minute period using a syringe or gravity drip. In practice, pump-assisted continuous feeding is generally acceptable for critically ill patients to prevent EN-related complications. However, a limited number of studies have been conducted to support this practice. In addition, regarding muscle protein synthesis and gastrointestinal hormone secretion, intermittent or bolus feeding may be more beneficial than continuous EN feeding for critically ill patients. For medically stable patients with feeding tubes terminating in the stomach, bolus feeding is favored with respect to practical factors, such as cost, convenience, and patient mobility. However, few studies have shown whether intermittent or bolus feeding is beneficial in a critical care setting at present. Additional randomized controlled studies comparing intermittent with bolus feeding are required.

Intermittent versus continuous feeding in critically ill adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Early enteral nutrition is recommended in critically ill adult patients. The optimal method of administering enteral nutrition remains unknown. Continuous enteral nutrition administration in critically ill patients remains the most common practice worldwide; however, its practice has recently been called into question in favor of intermittent enteral nutrition administration, where volume is infused multiple times per day. This review will outline the key differences between continuous and intermittent enteral nutrition, describe the metabolic responses to continuous and intermittent enteral nutrition administration and outline recent studies comparing continuous with intermittent enteral nutrition administration on outcomes in critically ill adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

In separate studies, healthy humans and critically ill patients receiving intermittent nutrition (infused over 3 h) had improved whole body protein balance from negative to positive. These studies did not have an isonitrogenous control group. A randomized controlled trial of intermittent bolus versus continuous enteral nutrition in healthy humans found that intermittent bolus feeding increased mesenteric arterial blood flow, increased insulin and peptide YY and reduced blood glucose concentration. A randomized controlled trial comparing intermittent bolus to continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill patients did not demonstrate clinically relevant differences in glycemic variability, insulin use or tube feeding volume or caloric intake between the two groups.

SUMMARY

Studies in healthy humans suggest that intermittent nutrient administration, as opposed to continuous, improves whole body protein synthesis. Unfortunately, similarly designed studies are lacking for critically ill patients. Future studies evaluating the impact of intermittent versus continuous nutrition administration on critical care outcomes should take into account factors such as protein quantity, protein quality and delivery route (enteral and/or parenteral). Until further studies are conducted in critically ill patients, a recommendation for or against intermittent nutrition delivery cannot be made.

Nutrition therapy for critically ill patients across the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions: A consensus statement

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidance on managing the nutritional requirements of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been issued by several international bodies. While these guidelines are consulted in ICUs across the Asia-Pacific and Middle East regions, there is little guidance available that is tailored to the unique healthcare environments and demographics across these regions. Furthermore, the lack of consistent data from randomized controlled clinical trials, reliance on expert consensus, and differing recommendations in international guidelines necessitate further expert guidance on regional best practice when providing nutrition therapy for critically ill patients in ICUs in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East.

METHODS

The Asia-Pacific and Middle East Working Group on Nutrition in the ICU has identified major areas of uncertainty in clinical practice for healthcare professionals providing nutrition therapy in Asia-Pacific and the Middle East and developed a series of consensus statements to guide nutrition therapy in the ICU in these regions.

RESULTS

Accordingly, consensus statements have been provided on nutrition risk assessment and parenteral and enteral feeding strategies in the ICU, monitoring adequacy of, and tolerance to, nutrition in the ICU and institutional processes for nutrition therapy in the ICU. Furthermore, the Working Group has noted areas requiring additional research, including the most appropriate use of hypocaloric feeding in the ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

The objective of the Working Group in formulating these statements is to guide healthcare professionals in practicing appropriate clinical nutrition in the ICU, with a focus on improving quality of care, which will translate into improved patient outcomes.