Liu MY, Tang HC, Hu SH, Chang SJ. Peptide-based enteral formula improves tolerance and clinical outcomes in abdominal surgery patients relative to a whole protein enteral formula.
World J Gastrointest Surg 2016;
8:700-705. [PMID:
27830042 PMCID:
PMC5081552 DOI:
10.4240/wjgs.v8.i10.700]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2016] [Revised: 06/19/2016] [Accepted: 08/08/2016] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
AIM
To compare a dipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formula with a standard enteral formula for tolerance and nutritional outcomes in abdominal surgery patients.
METHODS
A retrospective study was performed to assess the differences between a whole-protein formula (WPF) and a dipeptide- and tripeptide-based formula (PEF) in clinical outcomes. Seventy-two adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with serum albumin concentrations less than 3.0 g/dL were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups (WPF group = 40 patients, PEF group = 32 patients). The study patients were fed for at least 7 d, with ≥ 1000 mL of enteral formula infused on at least 3 of the days.
RESULTS
The mean serum albumin level on postoperative day (POD) 10, prealbumin levels on POD-5 and POD-10, and total lymphocyte count on POD-5 were significantly higher in the PEF group compared to those in the WPF group (P < 0.05). The average maximum gastric residual volume of the PEF patients during their ICU stays was significantly lower than that for WPF patients.
CONCLUSION
Dipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formulas are more efficacious and better tolerated than whole-protein formulas.
Collapse