Nutrients, Vol. 17, Pages 301: An Assessment of Intermittent and Continuous Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Children

Nutrients, Vol. 17, Pages 301: An Assessment of Intermittent and Continuous Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Children

Nutrients doi: 10.3390/nu17020301

Authors:
Merve Misirlioglu
Dincer Yildizdas
Faruk Ekinci
Nihal Akcay
Ilyas Bingol
Ebru Sahin
Fatih Varol
Muhterem Duyu
Ayse Asik
Fatih Durak
Leyla Atman
Suleyman Bayraktar
Mehmet Alakaya
Ali Ertug Arslankoylu
Gurkan Bozan
Eylem Kiral
Ozden Ozgur Horoz
Hasan Ali Telefon
Abdullah Akkus
Abdullah Yazar
Ozlem Sandal
Hasan Agin
Alper Koker
Nazan Ulgen Tekerek
Nurettin Onur Kutlu
Mehmet Arda Kilinc
Ali Korulmaz
Hatice Feray Ari
Mutlu Uysal Yazici
Esra Sevketoglu
Mehmet Emin Menentoglu
Ebru Kacmaz
Mehmet Nur Talay
Ozhan Orhan
Berna Egehan Oruncu
Selman Kesici
Caglar Odek
Didar Arslan
Pinar Hepduman
Gultac Evren
Hatice Elif Kinik Kaya
Nazik Yener
Emrah Gun
Ilkem Gardiyanoglu
Muhammed Udurgucu
Sinan Yavuz
Ali Avci
Murat Ozkale
Yasemin Ozkale
Damla Pinar Yavas Kocaoglu
Sahin Sincar
Yasemin Coban

Background: The inability to ensure adequate nutrition for patients, and failure to provide adequate calorie and protein intake, result in malnutrition, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. The present study assesses the two approaches to enteral nutrition—intermittent and continuous enteral feeding—in critically ill pediatric patients in Türkiye to determine the superiority of one method over the other. Methods: Included in this multicenter prospective study were patients receiving enteral nutrition via a tube who were followed up over a 3-month period. Anthropometric data, calorie and protein intake, and signs of feeding intolerance were evaluated in a comparison of the different feeding methods. Results: A total of 510 patients were examined. In the continuous enteral feeding (CEF) group, 20.2% of patients developed metabolic abnormalities, and 49.5% experienced enteral nutrition intolerance, both of which were higher than in the intermittent enteral feeding (IEF) group, and the differences were statistically significant. No significant differences were observed between the two feeding methods in terms of reaching the target calorie intake on days 2 and 7 (p > 0.05). On day 7, there were significant differences between the two feeding methods in terms of calorie and protein intake (p = 0.023 and 0.014, respectively). Conclusions: In the present study, assessing the IEF and CEF approaches to enteral nutrition, critically ill pediatric patients receiving intermittent feeding exhibited lower rates of enteral nutrition intolerance and metabolic abnormalities. Furthermore, the calorie and protein intake on day 7 were noted to be higher in the IEF group than in the CEF group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings of the present study.

​Background: The inability to ensure adequate nutrition for patients, and failure to provide adequate calorie and protein intake, result in malnutrition, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. The present study assesses the two approaches to enteral nutrition—intermittent and continuous enteral feeding—in critically ill pediatric patients in Türkiye to determine the superiority of one method over the other. Methods: Included in this multicenter prospective study were patients receiving enteral nutrition via a tube who were followed up over a 3-month period. Anthropometric data, calorie and protein intake, and signs of feeding intolerance were evaluated in a comparison of the different feeding methods. Results: A total of 510 patients were examined. In the continuous enteral feeding (CEF) group, 20.2% of patients developed metabolic abnormalities, and 49.5% experienced enteral nutrition intolerance, both of which were higher than in the intermittent enteral feeding (IEF) group, and the differences were statistically significant. No significant differences were observed between the two feeding methods in terms of reaching the target calorie intake on days 2 and 7 (p > 0.05). On day 7, there were significant differences between the two feeding methods in terms of calorie and protein intake (p = 0.023 and 0.014, respectively). Conclusions: In the present study, assessing the IEF and CEF approaches to enteral nutrition, critically ill pediatric patients receiving intermittent feeding exhibited lower rates of enteral nutrition intolerance and metabolic abnormalities. Furthermore, the calorie and protein intake on day 7 were noted to be higher in the IEF group than in the CEF group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings of the present study. Read More

Full text for top nursing and allied health literature.

X