Calorie Intake of Enteral Nutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Acutely Critically Ill Patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Young Choi ◽  
Dong-Ah Park ◽  
Jinkyeong Park
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 2528-2537
Author(s):  
Akram Kooshki ◽  
Zaher Khazaei ◽  
Azam Zarghi ◽  
Mojtaba Rad ◽  
Hadi Gholam Mohammadi ◽  
...  

Background: Enteral nutrition (EN) intolerance is a common complication in critically ill patients that contributes to morbidity and mortality. Based on the evidence of curing effects of fenugreek seeds in some gastrointestinal disorders, this study aimed to determine the effects of fenugreek seed powder on enteral nutrition tolerance and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. Materials & Methods: A randomized, double-blinded clinical trial of 5-day duration was conducted on 60 mechanically ventilated patients divided in 2 groups (n=30). Group 1 was given fenugreek seed powder by gavage, twice a day in addition to routine care, while Group 2 received only routine care. Enteral nutrition tolerance and clinical outcomes were measured throughout the study. Demographic and clinical data were recorded and clinical responses to the primary outcome (enteral nutrition tolerance) and secondary outcome (other clinical factors) were interpreted. Data were analyzed using the independent t-test, Chi-squared test, covariance analysis, and repeated measure ANOVA via SPSS statistical software (v. 20); statistical significance was set at p< 0.05. Results: Patients who were fed with the fenugreek seed powder showed a significant improvement in enteral nutrition tolerance, as well as some complications of mechanical ventilation for Group 1, as compared with Group 2. The mortality rates were not different between the two groups. Conclusion: This study shows the beneficial effects of fenugreek seeds on food intolerance in critically ill patients and that the seed powder can be used as an add-on therapy with other medications. Thus, the use of fenugreek seeds to treat mechanically ventilated patients is recommended.


Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Xourgia ◽  
Christina Routsi ◽  
Anastasia Kotanidou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.


2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110020
Author(s):  
Natasha Romero ◽  
Kevin M. Dube ◽  
Kenneth E. Lupi ◽  
Jeremy R. DeGrado

Background: An impaired sleep-wake cycle may be one factor that affects the development of delirium in critically ill patients. Several small studies suggest that exogenous melatonin or ramelteon may decrease the incidence and/or duration of delirium. Objective: To compare the effect of prophylactic administration of melatonin, ramelteon, or no melatonin receptor agonist on the development of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study of nondelirious patients in the ICU who received melatonin, ramelteon, or no melatonin receptor agonist. The primary end point was the incidence of delirium. Secondary end points included assessments of daily level of sedation and daily utilization of antipsychotic, sedative, and opioid agents. Results: No difference was observed in the incidence of delirium among the melatonin, ramelteon, and placebo cohorts (18.7% vs 14.3% vs 13.8%; P = 0.77). A difference was observed in the rate of agitation and sedation among the 3 groups, with the greatest observed in the melatonin cohort. Additionally, there was a difference in the use of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and opioids. Overall, there was no difference in clinical outcomes, including duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU or hospital length of stay. Conclusion and Relevance: Therapy with melatonin, ramelteon, and no melatonin receptor agonist resulted in similar rates of delirium in a mixed ICU population. Despite significant differences in agitation, sedation, and medication utilization, there was no differences in the clinical outcomes evaluated.


Obesity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allon N. Friedman ◽  
John Guirguis ◽  
Raj Kapoor ◽  
Shruti Gupta ◽  
David E. Leaf ◽  
...  

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 3518
Author(s):  
Chen-Yu Wang ◽  
Pin-Kuei Fu ◽  
Wen-Cheng Chao ◽  
Wei-Ning Wang ◽  
Chao-Hsiu Chen ◽  
...  

Although energy intake might be associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, it remains unclear whether full or trophic feeding is suitable for critically ill patients with high or low nutrition risk. We conducted a prospective study to determine which feeding energy intakes were associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with high or low nutrition risk. This was an investigator-initiated, single center, single blind, randomized controlled trial. Critically ill patients were allocated to either high or low nutrition risk based on their Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill score, and then randomized to receive either the full or the trophic feeding. The feeding procedure was administered for six days. No significant differences were observed in hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortalities, the length of ventilator dependency, or ICU and hospital stay among the four groups. There were no associations between energy and protein intakes and hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortalities in any of the four groups. However, protein intake was positively associated with the length of hospital stay and ventilator dependency in patients with low nutrition risk receiving trophic feeding. Full or trophic feeding in critically ill patients showed no associations with clinical outcomes, regardless of nutrition risk.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document