Intermittent versus continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill children: A pre-planned secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Intermittent enteral nutrition (EN) may have physiologic benefits over continuous feeding in critical illness. We aimed to compare nutrition and infection outcomes in critically ill children receiving intermittent or continuous EN.

METHODS

International, multi-center prospective observational study of mechanically ventilated children, 1 month to 18 years of age, receiving EN. Percent energy or protein adequacy (energy or protein delivered/prescribed × 100) and acquired infection rates were compared between intermittent and continuous EN groups using adjusted-multivariable and 4:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed after excluding patients who crossed over between intermittent and continuous EN.

RESULTS

1375 eligible patients from 66 PICUs were included. Patients receiving continuous EN (N = 1093) had a higher prevalence of respiratory illness and obesity, and lower prevalence of neurologic illness and underweight status on admission, compared to those on intermittent EN (N = 282). Percent energy or protein adequacy, proportion of patients who achieved 60% of energy or protein adequacy in the first 7 days of admission, and rates of acquired infection were not different between the 2 groups in adjusted-multivariable and propensity score matching analyses (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Intermittent versus continuous EN strategy is not associated with differences in energy or protein adequacy, or acquired infections, in mechanically ventilated, critically ill children. Until further evidence is available, an individualized feeding strategy rather than a universal approach may be appropriate.