Department of Critical Care, Logan Hospital, University of Queensland, Armstrong Road, Meadowbrook, Brisbane, 4131, Australia.
Crit Care. 2009;13(6):R187. doi: 10.1186/cc8181. Epub 2009 Nov 25.
To compare outcomes from early post-pyloric to gastric feeding in ventilated, critically ill patients in a medical intensive care unit (ICU).
Prospective randomized study. Ventilated patients were randomly assigned to receive enteral feed via a nasogastric or a post-pyloric tube. Post-pyloric tubes were inserted by the bedside nurse and placement was confirmed radiographically.
A total of 104 patients were enrolled, 54 in the gastric group and 50 in the post-pyloric group. Bedside post-pyloric tube insertion was successful in 80% of patients. Patients who failed post-pyloric insertion were fed via the nasogastric route, but were analysed on an intent-to treat basis. A per protocol analysis was also performed. Baseline characteristics were similar for all except Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, which was higher in the post-pyloric group. There was no difference in length of stay or ventilator days. The gastric group was quicker to initiate feed 4.3 hours (2.9 - 6.5 hours) as compared to post-pyloric group 6.6 hours (4.5 - 13.0 hours) (P = 0.0002). The time to reach target feeds from admission was also faster in gastric group: 8.7 hours (7.6 - 13.0 hours) compared to 12.3 hours (8.9 - 17.5 hours). The average daily energy and protein deficit were lower in gastric group 73 Kcal (2 - 288 Kcal) and 3.5 g (0 - 15 g) compared to 167 Kcal (70 - 411 Kcal) and 6.5 g (2.8 - 17.3 g) respectively but was only statistically significant for the average energy deficit (P = 0.035). This difference disappeared in the per protocol analysis. Complication rates were similar.
Early post-pyloric feeding offers no advantage over early gastric feeding in terms of overall nutrition received and complications
anzctr.org.au:ACTRN12606000367549.
在医疗重症监护病房(ICU)中,比较经鼻胃管和经幽门后管给予机械通气危重症患者早期肠内营养的结局。
前瞻性随机研究。将需要机械通气的患者随机分配通过鼻胃管或幽门后管接受肠内喂养。幽门后管由床边护士插入,并通过 X 线确认位置。
共纳入 104 例患者,54 例分入胃内喂养组,50 例分入幽门后喂养组。80%的患者床边幽门后管插入成功。未能成功插入幽门后管的患者通过鼻胃管喂养,但仍按意向治疗原则进行分析。还进行了方案分析。除急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分(APACHE II 评分)外,所有患者的基线特征相似,而幽门后组的 APACHE II 评分更高。两组患者的住院时间或通气时间无差异。胃内喂养组更快开始喂养(4.3 小时(2.9 至 6.5 小时)),而幽门后组为 6.6 小时(4.5 至 13.0 小时)(P=0.0002)。从入院到达到目标喂养量的时间,胃内喂养组也更快:8.7 小时(7.6 至 13.0 小时),而幽门后组为 12.3 小时(8.9 至 17.5 小时)。胃内喂养组的每日平均能量和蛋白质缺乏量分别为 73 千卡(2 至 288 千卡)和 3.5 克(0 至 15 克),低于幽门后喂养组的 167 千卡(70 至 411 千卡)和 6.5 克(2.8 至 17.3 克),但仅在平均能量缺乏方面具有统计学意义(P=0.035)。在方案分析中,这种差异消失了。并发症发生率相似。
在接受的总体营养和并发症方面,早期幽门后喂养与早期胃内喂养相比没有优势。
anzctr.org.au:ACTRN12606000367549。