Suppr超能文献

在治疗危重症患者的喂养不耐受方面,红霉素比甲氧氯普胺更有效。

Erythromycin is more effective than metoclopramide in the treatment of feed intolerance in critical illness.

作者信息

Nguyen Nam Q, Chapman Marianne J, Fraser Robert J, Bryant Laura K, Holloway Richard H

机构信息

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and General Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, and University Department of Medicine, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.

出版信息

Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2):483-9. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000253410.36492.E9.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to a) compare the efficacy of metoclopramide and erythromycin in the treatment of feed intolerance in critical illness; and b) determine the effectiveness of "rescue" combination therapy in patients who fail monotherapy.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Level III mixed medical and surgical intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

Ninety mechanically ventilated, medical patients with feed-intolerance (gastric residual volume>or=250 mL).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received either metoclopramide 10 mg intravenously four times daily (n=45) or erythromycin 200 mg intravenously twice a day (n=45) in a double-blind, randomized fashion. After the first dose, nasogastric feeding was commenced and 6-hourly nasogastric aspirates were performed. If a gastric residual volume>or=250 mL recurred on treatment, open-label, combination therapy was given. Patients were studied for 7 days. Successful feeding was defined as 6-hourly gastric residual volume<250 mL with a feeding rate>or=40 mL/hr.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Demographic data, blood glucose levels, and use of inotropes, opioids, and benzodiazepines were similar between the two groups. After 24 hrs of treatment, both monotherapies reduced the mean gastric residual volume (metoclopramide, 830+/-32 mL to 435+/-30 mL, p<.0001; erythromycin, 798+/-33 mL to 201+/-19 mL, p<.0001) and improved the proportion of patients with successful feeding (metoclopramide=62% and erythromycin=87%). Treatment with erythromycin was more effective than metoclopramide, but the effectiveness of both treatments declined rapidly over time. In patients who failed monotherapy, rescue combination therapy was highly effective (day 1=92%) and maintained its effectiveness for the study duration (day 6=67%). High pretreatment gastric residual volume was associated with poor response to prokinetic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In critical illness, erythromycin is more effective than metoclopramide in treating feed intolerance, but the rapid decline in effectiveness renders both treatments suboptimal. Rescue combination therapy is highly effective, and further study is required to examine its role as the first-line therapy.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在a)比较甲氧氯普胺和红霉素治疗危重病患者喂养不耐受的疗效;b)确定单一疗法失败的患者接受“挽救性”联合治疗的有效性。

设计

随机对照试验。

地点

三级内科与外科混合重症监护病房。

患者

90例机械通气的内科喂养不耐受患者(胃残余量≥250 mL)。

干预措施

患者以双盲、随机方式接受每日4次静脉注射10 mg甲氧氯普胺(n = 45)或每日2次静脉注射200 mg红霉素(n = 45)。首剂用药后,开始鼻饲喂养,并每6小时进行一次鼻胃抽吸。如果治疗期间胃残余量再次≥250 mL,则给予开放标签的联合治疗。对患者进行7天的研究。成功喂养定义为每6小时胃残余量<250 mL且喂养速度≥40 mL/小时。

测量指标与主要结果

两组患者的人口统计学数据、血糖水平以及血管活性药物、阿片类药物和苯二氮䓬类药物的使用情况相似。治疗24小时后,两种单一疗法均降低了平均胃残余量(甲氧氯普胺组从830±32 mL降至435±30 mL,p<0.0001;红霉素组从798±33 mL降至201±19 mL,p<0.0001),并提高了成功喂养患者的比例(甲氧氯普胺组为62%,红霉素组为87%)。红霉素治疗比甲氧氯普胺更有效,但两种治疗的有效性均随时间迅速下降。在单一疗法失败的患者中,挽救性联合治疗非常有效(第1天为92%),并在研究期间维持其有效性(第6天为67%)。治疗前胃残余量高与促动力治疗反应不佳相关。

结论

在危重病中,红霉素治疗喂养不耐受比甲氧氯普胺更有效,但有效性迅速下降使两种治疗都不理想。挽救性联合治疗非常有效,需要进一步研究以检验其作为一线治疗的作用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验