Stuani Franzosi Oellen, Delfino von Frankenberg Anize, Loss Sergio Henrique, Silva Leite Nunes Diego, Rios Vieira Silvia Regina
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre.
Nutr Hosp. 2017 Feb 22;34(1):19-29. doi: 10.20960/nh.443.
Although guidelines emphasize that the provision of enteral nutrition (EN) should be as close as the patient's needs, prospective studies question this strategy.
To compare the effect of two EN strategies (underfeeding versus full-feeding) on ICU and overall mortality (hospital mortality or 60-day mortality) and length of stay (LOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), infectious complications, and gastrointestional tolerability in ICU patients.
Random effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Our search covered MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and CENTRAL databases until May 2015. Underfeeding was assigned into to two different groups according to the level of energy intake achieved (moderate feeding 46-72% and trophic feeding 16-25%) for subgroup analysis.
Five RCTs were included among the 904 studies retrieved (n=2432 patients). No difference was found in overall mortality when all five studies were combined. In the subgroup analysis, moderate feeding (three studies) showed lower mortality compared with full-feeding (RR 0.82;95%CI,0.68-0.98;I2 0% p=0.59 for heterogeneity). No differences were found for ICU mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, duration of MV, and infectious complications. Underfeeding showed lower occurrence of GI signs and symptoms except for aspiration and abdominal distention.
This meta-analysis found no differences in ICU and overall mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, duration of MV, and infectious complications between underfeeding and full-feeding. The subgroup analysis showed lower overall mortality among patients receiving moderate underfeeding. This result should be cautiously interpreted due to the limitations of the small number of studies analyzed and their methodology.
尽管指南强调肠内营养(EN)的供给应尽可能接近患者的需求,但前瞻性研究对这一策略提出了质疑。
比较两种肠内营养策略(不足量喂养与足量喂养)对ICU患者的ICU死亡率和总体死亡率(医院死亡率或60天死亡率)、住院时间(LOS)、机械通气(MV)持续时间、感染并发症以及胃肠道耐受性的影响。
对随机对照试验(RCT)进行随机效应荟萃分析。我们检索了截至2015年5月的MEDLINE、EMBASE、SCOPUS和CENTRAL数据库。根据实现的能量摄入水平,将不足量喂养分为两个不同组(适度喂养46%-72%和滋养性喂养16%-25%)进行亚组分析。
在检索到的904项研究中纳入了5项RCT(n=2432例患者)。将所有5项研究合并后,总体死亡率未发现差异。在亚组分析中,适度喂养(3项研究)与足量喂养相比,死亡率较低(风险比0.82;95%置信区间,0.68-0.98;异质性I² 0%,p=0.59)。在ICU死亡率、ICU和医院住院时间、MV持续时间以及感染并发症方面未发现差异。除了误吸和腹胀外,不足量喂养的胃肠道体征和症状发生率较低。
这项荟萃分析发现,不足量喂养和足量喂养在ICU死亡率和总体死亡率、ICU和医院住院时间、MV持续时间以及感染并发症方面没有差异。亚组分析显示,接受适度不足量喂养的患者总体死亡率较低。由于分析的研究数量较少及其方法存在局限性,对这一结果应谨慎解读。