Misirlioglu Merve, Yildizdas Dincer, Ekinci Faruk, Akcay Nihal, Bingol Ilyas, Sahin Ebru, Varol Fatih, Duyu Muhterem, Asik Ayse, Durak Fatih, Atman Leyla, Bayraktar Suleyman, Alakaya Mehmet, Arslankoylu Ali Ertug, Bozan Gurkan, Kiral Eylem, Ozgur Horoz Ozden, Telefon Hasan Ali, Akkus Abdullah, Yazar Abdullah, Sandal Ozlem, Agin Hasan, Koker Alper, Ulgen Tekerek Nazan, Kutlu Nurettin Onur, Kilinc Mehmet Arda, Korulmaz Ali, Feray Ari Hatice, Uysal Yazici Mutlu, Sevketoglu Esra, Menentoglu Mehmet Emin, Kacmaz Ebru, Talay Mehmet Nur, Orhan Ozhan, Egehan Oruncu Berna, Kesici Selman, Odek Caglar, Arslan Didar, Hepduman Pinar, Evren Gultac, Kinik Kaya Hatice Elif, Yener Nazik, Gun Emrah, Gardiyanoglu Ilkem, Udurgucu Muhammed, Yavuz Sinan, Avci Ali, Ozkale Murat, Ozkale Yasemin, Yavas Kocaoglu Damla Pinar, Sincar Sahin, Coban Yasemin
Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Mersin University, Mersin 33079, Türkiye.
Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Faculty of Medicine, Cukurova University, Adana 01790, Türkiye.
Nutrients. 2025 Jan 15;17(2):301. doi: 10.3390/nu17020301.
The inability to ensure adequate nutrition for patients, and failure to provide adequate calorie and protein intake, result in malnutrition, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. The present study assesses the two approaches to enteral nutrition-intermittent and continuous enteral feeding-in critically ill pediatric patients in Türkiye to determine the superiority of one method over the other.
Included in this multicenter prospective study were patients receiving enteral nutrition via a tube who were followed up over a 3-month period. Anthropometric data, calorie and protein intake, and signs of feeding intolerance were evaluated in a comparison of the different feeding methods.
A total of 510 patients were examined. In the continuous enteral feeding (CEF) group, 20.2% of patients developed metabolic abnormalities, and 49.5% experienced enteral nutrition intolerance, both of which were higher than in the intermittent enteral feeding (IEF) group, and the differences were statistically significant. No significant differences were observed between the two feeding methods in terms of reaching the target calorie intake on days 2 and 7 ( > 0.05). On day 7, there were significant differences between the two feeding methods in terms of calorie and protein intake ( = 0.023 and 0.014, respectively).
In the present study, assessing the IEF and CEF approaches to enteral nutrition, critically ill pediatric patients receiving intermittent feeding exhibited lower rates of enteral nutrition intolerance and metabolic abnormalities. Furthermore, the calorie and protein intake on day 7 were noted to be higher in the IEF group than in the CEF group. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings of the present study.
无法确保患者获得充足营养，以及未能提供足够的热量和蛋白质摄入，会导致营养不良，进而增加发病率和死亡率。本研究评估了土耳其危重症儿科患者肠内营养的两种方法——间歇性肠内喂养和连续性肠内喂养，以确定一种方法相对于另一种方法的优越性。
本多中心前瞻性研究纳入了通过管道接受肠内营养并随访3个月的患者。在比较不同喂养方法时，评估了人体测量数据、热量和蛋白质摄入量以及喂养不耐受的体征。
共检查了510例患者。在连续性肠内喂养（CEF）组中，20.2%的患者出现代谢异常，49.5%的患者出现肠内营养不耐受，两者均高于间歇性肠内喂养（IEF）组，差异具有统计学意义。在第2天和第7天达到目标热量摄入方面，两种喂养方法之间未观察到显著差异（P>0.05）。在第7天，两种喂养方法在热量和蛋白质摄入量方面存在显著差异（分别为P = 0.023和0.014）。
在本研究中，评估肠内营养的IEF和CEF方法时，接受间歇性喂养的危重症儿科患者肠内营养不耐受和代谢异常的发生率较低。此外，IEF组第7天的热量和蛋白质摄入量高于CEF组。需要进一步的随机对照试验来证实本研究的结果。
