Liashchenko Iu N
Eksp Klin Gastroenterol. 2012(2):106-15.
A comparative analysis of current practical recommendations on parenteral (PN) and enteral (EN) Nutrition in critical conditions, developed based on research evidence ASPEN/SCCM (USA), ESPEN (Europe) and SSGP (Canada) along with the similarity found a number of differences in major issues (raised levels of research necessary for the class of recommendations, t he need for and terms of use of PN, glycemic control, achieving the target level of EN), and private (indirect calorimetry, of the EN, the use of individual substrates in PN) as well. The differences make it difficult to select recommendations for use in clinical practice. Over 50% of practical advices are lower grade (based on expert opinion). Difficulties associated with implementation of evidence-based research, different theoretical and practical traditions and resource capabilities in the field of PN and EN in different countries, are the basis for their further harmonization and the development of national best practices in Russia.
对基于美国肠外肠内营养学会(ASPEN)/危重病医学会(SCCM)、欧洲肠外肠内营养学会(ESPEN)和加拿大危重病营养支持组(SSGP)研究证据制定的危重症肠外营养(PN)和肠内营养(EN)当前实用建议进行的比较分析,发现尽管存在一些相似之处,但在主要问题(建议类别所需的研究水平提高、PN的使用需求和使用期限、血糖控制、实现EN目标水平)以及具体问题(间接测热法、EN、PN中单个底物的使用)方面也存在一些差异。这些差异使得难以选择适用于临床实践的建议。超过50%的实用建议级别较低(基于专家意见)。不同国家在PN和EN领域实施循证研究存在困难、理论和实践传统不同以及资源能力各异,这些是进一步协调这些建议并制定俄罗斯国家最佳实践的基础。