Safety and efficacy of continuous or intermittent enteral nutrition in patients in the intensive care unit: Systematic review of clinical evidence.

JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2022-02-14 DOI:10.1002/jpen.2316
Francesco De Lazzaro, Francesco Alessandri, Maria Grazia Tarsitano, Federico Bilotta, Francesco Pugliese
{"title":"Safety and efficacy of continuous or intermittent enteral nutrition in patients in the intensive care unit: Systematic review of clinical evidence.","authors":"Francesco De Lazzaro, Francesco Alessandri, Maria Grazia Tarsitano, Federico Bilotta, Francesco Pugliese","doi":"10.1002/jpen.2316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The best mode of delivering enteral nutrition (EN) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is still debated: several consensus guidelines (American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition [ASPEN] and the European Society for Parental and Enteral Nutrition [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 EN (C-EN) or intermittent EN (I-EN) in patients in the ICU, in relation to appropriated supply on nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms or tolerance, and 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, nutrition protocols, and study period. Effects of C-EN vs I-EN were presented according to the impact on nutrition status, digestive tract, and respiratory tract. The contrasting results confirmed that the optimal delivering mode of EN remains controversial. Future studies dedicated to identifying the benefits and limitations of C-EN or I-EN should be realized.</p>","PeriodicalId":520701,"journal":{"name":"JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition","volume":" ","pages":"486-498"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jpen.2316","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The best mode of delivering enteral nutrition (EN) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is still debated: several consensus guidelines (American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition [ASPEN] and the European Society for Parental and Enteral Nutrition [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 EN (C-EN) or intermittent EN (I-EN) in patients in the ICU, in relation to appropriated supply on nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms or tolerance, and 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, nutrition protocols, and study period. Effects of C-EN vs I-EN were presented according to the impact on nutrition status, digestive tract, and respiratory tract. The contrasting results confirmed that the optimal delivering mode of EN remains controversial. Future studies dedicated to identifying the benefits and limitations of C-EN or I-EN should be realized.

重症监护病房患者持续或间歇肠内营养的安全性和有效性:临床证据的系统回顾。
在重症监护室(ICU)提供肠内营养(EN)的最佳模式仍存在争议:一些共识指南(美国肠外和肠内营养学会[ASPEN]和欧洲父母和肠内营养学会[ESPEN])建议,ICU的EN最好是连续而不是间歇性地提供,但一些作者强调第一种是非生理性的。本系统综述(SR)的目的是总结与ICU患者持续EN (C-EN)或间歇EN (I-EN)的安全性和有效性相关的现有临床证据,涉及营养状况、胃肠道症状或耐受性以及呼吸道感染风险的适当供应。检索PubMed、EMBASE和谷歌Scholar的文献,比较C-EN和I-EN,筛选了4196篇已发表的研究。本SR报告的ICU类型、营养方案和研究时间选择了19项研究。根据对营养状况、消化道和呼吸道的影响,介绍C-EN和I-EN的效果。对比结果证实,EN的最佳输送方式仍存在争议。未来的研究应该致力于确定C-EN或I-EN的优点和局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信