CCN
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Crit Care Nurse 2003 Dec; 23(6): 49-57
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Respond to This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Take the CE Test
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by George, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by George, C.

Nutrition in Critical Care
CE Online

Nutrition Support in the Intensive Care

Unit Adequacy, Timeliness, and Outcomes

Susan R. Roberts, MS, RD, LD, CNSD
 Donald A. Kennerly, MD
 Deanna Keane, MEd, RD, LD
 Caron George, RD

Susan R. Roberts has been employed at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Tex, since 1989. She is a nutrition specialist in the marrow/stem cell transplant program and coordinator of the nutrition support team.

Donald A. Kennerly is the medical director for the Center for Quality and Care at Baylor University Medical Center. Dr Kennerly provided statistical analysis for this study.

Deanna Keane was a dietetic intern at Baylor University Medical Center when this study was conducted and assisted in data collection. She is currently employed at Cook Children’s Medical Center in Ft Worth, Tex.

Caron George was a dietetic intern at Baylor University Medical Center when this study was conducted and assisted in data collection. She is currently attending the McWhorter School of Pharmacy at Samford University in Birmingham, Ala.

To purchase reprints, contact The InnoVision Group, 101 Columbia, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. Phone, (800) 809–2273 or (949) 362–2050 (ext 532); fax, (949) 362–2049; e-mail, reprints{at}aacn.org.

To receive CE credit for this article, visit the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses’ (AACN) Web site at http://www.aacn.org, click on "Education" and select "Continuing Education," or call AACN’s Fax On Demand at (800) 222–6329 and request item No. 1173.

Nutrition support is commonly used as supportive care in critically ill patients, either to treat existing malnutrition or to prevent development of nutritional deficiencies. Critical care nurses are important in this supportive therapy because they administer nutritional formulas to critically ill patients. A number of clinical trials indicated the benefits of providing nutrition support, particularly enteral feedings, to critically ill patients. Important outcomes such as rates of infection, lengths of stay, and costs can be decreased by the early initiation of enteral feedings.1–6 Despite knowledge of these benefits, the actual nutrition support received by patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is not always optimal for various reasons. Overfeeding by any route of nutrition support can be detrimental, and inadequate provision of nutrition support or underfeeding, which is more common in tube-fed patients, can also be harmful7–10 (Table 1Go). Additionally, because provision of nutrition support is not without risks, it is important to use nutrition support in the appropriate patients and under the appropriate conditions11–13 (Table 2Go). Gastrointestinal complications (eg, impaired gastric emptying and diarrhea) and the requirement to stop feedings before procedures and surgery are the major factors impeding adequate delivery of enteral feedings.14–18 Therefore, clinicians often implement protocols for critically ill patients to improve the adequacy and timeliness of nutrition support.19,20 All members of the multidisciplinary team contribute to adequate and timely provision of nutrition support, but the skill and experience of critical care nurses in caring for critically ill patients is pivotal to the success of nutrition support. Because nutrition support can affect important outcomes, we undertook a retrospective review of medical records of 50 patients in the ICU to determine the adequacy and timeliness of nutrition support provided, the influence of these factors on outcomes, and areas in need of improvement.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Complications of overfeeding and underfeeding critically ill patients7–10

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Indications for use of nutrition support11–13

 
Methods

Baylor University Medical Center is a 1000-bed tertiary care hospital in Dallas, Tex, that has medical, surgical, trauma, and coronary ICUs. Study patients were obtained from a list of all ICU admissions from January through February 2000. Data were collected on the first 50 patients on the list that met the inclusion criteria. The following inclusion criteria were used: stay in the ICU of 3 days or more, received nutrition support while in the ICU, and no do-not-resuscitate order at the time of admission. The data were collected retrospectively from the medical record. Permission to review and collect data for publication was obtained from Baylor Medical Center’s institutional review board. Table 3Go outlines the information retrieved from each patient’s medical record.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Data collected on patients in the study

 
SPSS, version 9.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill) was used for statistical analyses. The Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine correlations between variables studied and outcomes such as length of stay in the ICU, survival, and days of mechanical ventilation. A t test was used to evaluate differences in length of stay in the ICU between patients fed early versus those fed late, and to evaluate for differences in age, score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and energy intake per kilogram between the early feeding and late feeding groups.

Results

Characteristics of Patients
Table 4Go contains the data for characteristics of patients. Malnutrition at admission was determined by considering the underlying disease process, the presence of marked recent unintentional weight loss (defined as 4.5 kg [10 lb] in the past 2 months), low body mass index (<19; calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters), recent oral intake, and presence of gastrointestinal signs and symptoms such as vomiting, dysphagia, and diarrhea before admission. A large percentage of patients had chronic diseases, such as diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and cardiovascular disease, in addition to their acute illness leading to admission to the ICU. The APACHE II score reflects severity of illness in this group of patients and was calculated by using data from the first 24 hours in the ICU. The APACHE II score correlated positively with age (r=0.44, P=.001), days receiving mechanical ventilation (r=0.35, P=.013), and presence of chronic disease (r=0.41, P=.003). Figure 1Go provides information on length of stay in the ICU, number of days receiving mechanical ventilation and nutrition support, and the ICU day that nutrition support was started. Seventy-two percent of the patients survived (discharged from the hospital either to home or another institution). Survival did not correlate significantly with most variables studied, including age, body mass index, presence of chronic disease, length of stay in the ICU, and adequacy of nutritional support. A trend of association was apparent between survival and both APACHE II score (r=–0.23, P=.12) and malnutrition at admission (r=–0.24, P=.09).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4 Characteristics of patients

 


View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1 Mean days in intensive care unit (SD 5), days receiving mechanical ventilation (SD 6.9), days receiving nutrition support (SD 4.7), and day in the intensive care unit that nutrition support was started (SD 2.8).

 
Route of Nutrition Support
The percentages of patients fed enterally, parenterally, or via both routes were 70%, 12%, and 18%, respectively. Of the patients fed via the enteral route, 93% received gastric feedings and 7% received small-bowel feedings. The patients given total parenteral nutrition did meet the medical center’s standard criteria for parenteral nutrition (presence of bowel obstruction, ileus, inflammatory bowel disease, short-bowel syndrome, pancreatitis, fistula, abscess, hematopoietic stem cell transplant, or failure to tolerate small-bowel enteral feedings); therefore, no inappropriate use of total parenteral nutrition occurred in this group of patients. Compared with patients fed via the enteral route only, a larger percentage of patients who received total parenteral nutrition (either alone or in combination with enteral feedings) received adequate calories and protein (Figure 2Go). Provision of calories and protein was considered adequate if 85% or more of nutrient needs were met.



View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2 Adequacy of nutrition support: patients receiving 85% or more of energy intake and protein needs by various nutrition support routes.

 
Timeliness of Initiation of Nutrition Support and Intervention by a Dietitian
Nutrition support was initiated in 68% of patients by the end of the third day of ICU stay and in 86% of patients by the fifth ICU day. Figure 3Go displays the mean length of stay in the ICU for patients who were started on nutrition support in 3 days or less and patients started on nutrition support more than 3 days after admission to the ICU. Selected characteristics of these 2 groups of patients were compared (Figure 4Go). The groups had similar ages (mean 60.5 vs 51.6 years) and APACHE II scores (mean 21.9 vs 20.9), and the energy intake per kilogram of body weight was equivalent in the 2 groups (mean 86 vs 89.5 kJ/kg). ICU day of initial nutrition assessment or intervention by a registered dietitian was also studied. The dietitian assessed 66% of the patients within the first 3 days of their ICU stay. Intervention by a registered dietitian within the first 3 days resulted in a trend toward a shorter ICU stay (r=–0.23, P=.10). The ICU day that nutrition support was initiated did not correlate with the number of days patients required mechanical ventilation (r=–0.07, P=.63).



View larger version (31K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 3 Length of stay in the intensive care unit was significantly different (P < .02) between patients provided nutrition support within 3 days of admission (SD 6.2) and patients provided nutrition support more than 3 days after admission (SD 4.2).

 


View larger version (29K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 4 Characteristics of patients in the intensive care unit in whom nutrition support was started within 3 days after admission (early) versus patients in whom nutrition support was started more than 3 days after admission to the unit (late).

 
Adequacy of Nutrition Support
Table 5Go provides information on the nutrient intake received by the patients in the ICU. Advancement of feedings was slow; only 28% of patients were receiving 83.68 to 146.44 kJ/kg (20–35 kcal/kg) by the third day of nutrition support. When the relationship between adequacy of calories and length of stay in the ICU was evaluated, the length of stay in the ICU was shorter for patients who had sufficient energy intake, defined as within the range of 83.68 to 146.44 kJ/kg (r=–0.28, P<.05). A nonsignificant positive correlation was found between the percentage of energy needs met and the number of days of mechanical ventilation (r=0.19, P=.19). A statistically significant positive correlation was found between the percentage of protein needs met and the number of days of mechanical ventilation (r = 0.28, P < .05).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5 Adequacy of nutrition support provided in the intensive care unit

 
Gastrointestinal Complications
Table 6Go lists the gastrointestinal complications present in this group of ICU patients. The most common gastrointestinal complications were high gastric residual volumes and diarrhea. The medical center did not have an accepted residual volume when this study was done. Therefore, physicians would specify the acceptable residual volume for each patient, often a very low volume, a practice that led to missed enteral feedings. Diarrhea was the second most common gastrointestinal complication and was noted as a complication if a patient had 3 or more loose stools per day. Enteral feedings were also often stopped or slowed because of diarrhea. The occurrence of gastrointestinal complications correlated positively with a longer stay in the ICU (r=0.44, P<.011). Mean APACHE II scores were 21.4 for patients with and 22.2 for patients without gastrointestinal complications.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 6 Gastrointestinal complications in patients receiving nutrition support in the intensive care unit

 
Discussion

Nutrition support is generally accepted as an important supportive therapy for critically ill patients. In our study, feeding critically ill patients adequately and in a timely manner, especially via the enteral route, was a challenge. Limitations of this study include the retrospective collection of data, lack of randomization, and small sample size. However, the study provided information that will facilitate quality improvement in the delivery of nutrition support to critically ill patients at the medical center.

Route of Administration
At Baylor Medical Center, enteral feeding is used more often than is total parenteral nutrition. Enteral feeding is generally the preferred route of nutrition support because it is less expensive, preserves gut function, and has fewer infectious complications than does total parenteral nutrition.21–23 Most patients in our study receiving enteral feedings were fed intragastrically. Debate is ongoing over whether gastric feedings or small-bowel feedings are best. Studies24–27 comparing gastric and small-bowel feedings for aspiration risk have yielded conflicting results, but in most, patients usually received more adequate nutrition support when fed into the small bowel. Heyland et al24 recently reported that transpyloric enteral feedings led to significantly less gastroesophageal regurgitation and showed a trend toward less microaspiration than did gastric enteral feedings. That study also indicated that the farther the tip of the feeding tube is located in the distal part of the small bowel, the less likely it is that regurgitation will occur. Heyland et al concluded that feeding beyond the ligament of Trietz may prevent aspiration and related pulmonary infections. In our study, we did not examine the difference in frequency of aspiration or pneumonia in gastric versus duodenal feedings because such a small percentage of the patients receiving enteral feedings were fed into the small intestine. Critical care nurses can decrease aspiration risk in patients fed intragastrically by ensuring that the head of the bed is elevated 30°to 45°and requesting use of a prokinetic agent or placement of a small-bowel feeding tube in patients with persistent high residual volumes.

Timeliness of Initiation of Nutrition Support and Intervention by a Dietitian
Although early nutrition support is not formally defined, it most often refers to feedings initiated within the first 24 to 72 hours after injury or acute illness requiring intensive care. A consensus statement21 published by the American College of Chest Physicians supports the initiation of enteral nutrition as soon as possible after resuscitation. Early initiation of nutrition support, specifically enteral feedings, has been promoted to improve outcomes. Table 7Go provides a summary of selected studies related to early enteral feedings.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 7 Characteristics of 4 studies of early enteral feedings

 
In the 2 large meta-analyses,1,2 early enteral feeding was beneficial compared with late enteral feeding, whereas in the smaller studies,28,29 early enteral feeding did not appear to be advantageous compared with late enteral feeding. Although early versus delayed feedings were examined in all studies, different populations of patients were included, and the feeding tubes were located in different sites. These differences may explain the variations in the results. Additionally, in the study by Ibrahim et al,29 who found that patients fed early had more infections and longer stays, the patients all received gastric feedings and target nutrition goals were not met in either the control or treatment group. These factors may have affected the results. Even though more infections occurred in the group fed early, Ibrahim et al did not find any difference in mortality between the group fed early and the group fed late. We also found that survival rates were unaffected by the nutrition support provided. However, patients who received nutrition support within the first 3 days of ICU admission had significantly shorter stays.

Overall, the evidence suggests that early enteral feeding is beneficial to critically ill patients. Further study is warranted to determine if only certain types of critically ill patients benefit or if outcomes differ between early intestinal and early gastric enteral feeding. In our study, early intervention (within the first 3 days) by a dietitian was associated with a shorter stay in the ICU, suggesting that more "nutritional attention" is important. Perhaps patients assessed earlier by a dietitian are more likely than patients assessed later either to already be receiving nutrition support or to receive more adequate nutrition support, because of the dietitian’s recommendations and interaction with the other members of the healthcare team. At Baylor Medical Center, critical care nurses and dietitians converse often about patients’ nutritional status, needs, and tolerance. This exchange of information provides a valuable contribution to the dietitian’s nutrition assessment and monitoring of nutrition support. Additionally, critical care nurses can communicate with physicians to facilitate early initiation of enteral feeding and intervention by a dietitian in critically ill patients, a step that in turn may improve patients’ outcomes.

Adequacy of Nutrition Support
Several investigators14,15,18,30 have studied practices related to enteral feeding in the ICU and found that inadequate nutrition support is common. Goals for critically ill patients are commonly set at 104.6 to 146.44 kJ/kg body weight for energy intake and 1.2 to 2.0 g/kg body weight for protein intake. Underfeeding may reduce function of skeletal muscle, preservation of the integrity of the gastrointestinal tract, and maintenance of immunity and the stress response to injury.30 In our study, provision of adequate energy intake correlated with a shorter stay in the ICU. In our study, as in other studies,14,15,18,30 difficulty providing sufficient nutrition support was related to a number of factors: gastrointestinal dysfunction, procedures and surgeries that require patients to fast, tube displacement, and routine nursing procedures. McClave et al30 found that 66% of cessations of enteral feeding were avoidable and provided many suggestions for improving delivery of such feedings. These suggestions include, in many patients, continuing enteral feedings as late as up to 4 hours before surgical or endoscopic procedures without increasing risk for aspiration or endangering the quality of the view at the time of the procedure.

Additionally, cessation of enteral feedings for nursing care or because of inappropriate low residual volumes could be eliminated with the implementation of standing orders and infusion protocols. Evaluation of the adequacy of nutrition support and reasons impeding adequate delivery should be investigated at individual facilities. Critical care nurses can collaborate with other members of the healthcare team to develop protocols and changes in policies that will promote more adequate provision of nutrition support.

Gastrointestinal Dysfunction
Impaired gastrointestinal function is relatively common in critically ill patients. High gastric residual volume and diarrhea were the most prevalent gastrointestinal disturbances in our patients, and gastrointestinal dysfunction was associated with a longer stay in the ICU. Mentec et al17 reported a 32% occurrence of increased residual volume, which compares well with our result of 38%. These investigators also reported that upper digestive intolerance was associated with a longer ICU stay, as well as a higher incidence of nosocomial pneumonia and increased mortality.

Patients who are more critically ill may have more gastrointestinal dysfunction and remain in the ICU longer than those who are less ill. However, the similarity of APACHE II scores for patients with and without gastrointestinal complications in our study does not support this theory. Another possibility is that gastrointestinal dysfunction leads to inadequate nutrition support and that this situation results in a longer stay in the ICU. Other investigators17,18,30 have reported on the relationship between gastrointestinal dysfunction and inadequate nutrition support.

We also found that most of our patients were underfed. This underfeeding may be related to the high percentage of patients receiving gastric feedings and the concomitant cessation of feedings because residual volume exceeded the cap set by the physician. In our study, residual volumes were often set very low (=100 mL). A residual volume of less than 150 to 200 mL is considered safe by most clinicians. Gastric residual volumes are monitored to reduce the risk of aspiration in patients fed intragastrically. Table 8Go summarizes selected studies19,31,32 related to enteral feeding and residual volume. According to Lukan et al,31 monitoring residual volume to prevent aspiration is not useful. The other studies19,32 provide evidence for the use of prokinetic agents for improving tolerance of gastric feedings. Although gastric feedings are easily initiated, appropriate practices and interventions should be implemented to avoid interruption of enteral feeding. Once gastric enteral feedings have not been successful because of high residual volume, despite addition of a prokinetic agent or change in formula type or rate, placement of a small-bowel feeding tube is indicated.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 8 Characteristics of studies related to residual volumes in enteral feedings

 
Diarrhea, another common gastrointestinal complication in patients receiving enteral feedings, is sometimes related to the enteral feeding. However, diarrhea usually has multiple causes, including medications, enteric pathogens, hypoalbuminemia, underlying disease, inflammatory syndromes, and sepsis. Bowling33 reported that diarrhea is more prevalent with gastric enteral feedings than with small-bowel feedings. The proposed mechanism is that large volumes of formula infused intragastrically can lead to secretion of water, sodium, and chloride from the colon, which may diminish its absorptive ability.33

Determination of the cause of diarrhea can assist in optimizing treatment. Nurses can facilitate this process by consulting with pharmacists, dietitians, and physicians to determine if a medication is the culprit or if changes in formula or infusion rate would be helpful. Additionally, cessation of the enteral feeding is not recommended as the initial treatment, and critical care nurses may need to advocate for patients by discouraging this practice. Other interventions nurses can suggest the team consider while determining the cause of diarrhea include adding fiber or banana flakes to the formula and changing to a peptide-based formula.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that length of stay in the ICU most likely has an inverse relationship with adequacy of nutrition support, ICU day when nutrition support is started, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and ICU day when the dietitian intervenes. Our results provide multiple opportunities for implementation of quality improvement measures by the healthcare team to enhance the provision of nutrition support to critically ill patients. Additionally, critical care nurses are crucial to the success of nutrition support, especially in the administration of enteral feedings. At our institution, we have implemented protocols and educational sessions to optimize delivery of nutrition support (Table 9Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 9 Protocols and education implemented to improve delivery of nutrition support

 

References

  1. Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Early enteral nutrition in acutely ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:2264–2270.[Medline]
  2. Lewis SJ, Egger M, Sylvester PA, Thomas S. Early enteral feeding versus "nil by mouth" after gastrointestinal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials. BMJ. 2001;323:773–776.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Hedberg A, Lairson DR, Aday LA, et al. Economic implications of an early postoperative enteral feeding protocol. J Am Diet Assoc. 1999;99:802–807.[Medline]
  4. Hasse JM, Blue LS, Liepa GU, et al. Early enteral nutrition support in patients undergoing liver transplantation. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1995;19:437–443.[Abstract]
  5. Grahm TW, Zadrozny DB, Harringon T. The benefits of early jejunal hyperalimentation in the head-injured patient. Neurosurgery. 1989;25:729–735.[Medline]
  6. Jenkins M, Gottschlich M, Alexander JW, Warden GD. Effect of immediate enteral feeding on the hypermetabolic response following severe burn injury [abstract]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1989;13:12S.
  7. Klein CJ, Stanek GS, Wiles CE. Overfeeding macronutrients to critically ill adults: metabolic complications. J Am Diet Assoc. 1998;98:795–806.[Medline]
  8. Albina JE. Nutrition and wound healing. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1994;18:367–376.[Abstract]
  9. Barton RG. Nutrition support in critical illness. Nutr Clin Pract. 1994;9:127–139.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. McClave SA, Lowen CC, Kleber MJ, et al. Are patients fed appropriately according to their caloric requirements? JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1998;22:375–381.[Abstract]
  11. ASPEN Board of Directors and the Clinical Guidelines Task Force. Guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients [published correction appears in JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26:144]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26(1 suppl):1SA–138SA.
  12. Charney P. Enteral nutrition: indications, options, and formulations. In: Gottschlich MM, ed. The Science and Practice of Nutrition Support: A Case-Based Core Curriculum. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co; 2001:141–166.
  13. Mirtallo JM. Introduction to parenteral nutrition. In: Gottschlich MM, ed. The Science and Practice of Nutrition Support: A Case-Based Core Curriculum. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co; 2001:211–223.
  14. Lyons M, Clemens LH. Energy deficits associated with nasogastric feeding in patients with burns. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2000;21:372–374.[Medline]
  15. De Jonghe B, Appere-De-Vechi C, Fournier M, et al. A prospective survey of nutritional support practices in intensive care unit patients: what is prescribed? What is delivered? Crit Care Med. 2001;29:8–12.[Medline]
  16. Heyland DK, Tougas G, King D, Cook DJ. Impaired gastric emptying in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:1339–1344.[Medline]
  17. Mentec H, Dupont H, Bocchetti M, Cani P, Ponche F, Bleichner G. Upper digestive intolerance during enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: frequency, risk factors, and complications. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1955–1961.[Medline]
  18. Adam S, Batson S. A study of problems associated with the delivery of enteral feed in critically ill patients in five ICUs in the UK. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:261–266.[Medline]
  19. Pinilla JC, Samphire J, Arnold C, Liu L, Thiessen B. Comparison of gastrointestinal tolerance of two enteral feeding protocols in critically ill patients: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2001;25:81–86.[Abstract]
  20. Spain DA, McClave SA, Sexton LK, et al. Infusion protocol improves delivery of enteral tube feeding in the critical care unit. J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1999;23:288–292.[Abstract]
  21. Cerra FB, Benitez MR, Blackburn GL, et al. Applied nutrition in ICU patients: a consensus statement of the American College of Chest Physicians. Chest. 1997;111:769–778.[Free Full Text]
  22. Jolliet P, Pichard C, Biolo G, et al. Enteral nutrition in intensive care patients: a practical approach. Clin Nutr. 1999;18:47–56.[Medline]
  23. Lipman TO. Grains or veins: is enteral nutrition really better than parenteral nutrition? A look at the evidence. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1998;22:167–182.[Abstract]
  24. Heyland DK, Drover JW, MacDonald S, Novak F, Lam M. Effect of postpyloric feeding on gastroesophageal regurgitation and pulmonary microaspiration: results of a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1495–1501.[Medline]
  25. Esparza J, Boivin MA, Hartshorne MF, Levy H. Equal aspiration rates in gastrically and transpylorically fed critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27:660–664.[Medline]
  26. Kearns PJ, Chin D, Mueller L, Wallace K, Jensen W, Kirsch CM. The incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia and success in nutrient delivery with gastric versus small intestinal feeding: a randomized clinical trial. Crit Care Med. 2000;28:1742–1746.[Medline]
  27. Kortbeek JB, Haigh PI, Doig C. Duodenal versus gastric feeding in ventilated blunt trauma patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Trauma. 1999;46:992–996.[Medline]
  28. Minard G, Kudsk KA, Melton S, Patton JH, Tolley EA. Early versus delayed feeding with an immune-enhancing diet in patients with severe head injuries. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2000;24:145–149.[Abstract]
  29. Ibrahim EH, Mehringer L, Prentice D, et al. Early versus late enteral feeding of mechanically ventilated patients: results of a clinical trial. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26:174–181.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  30. McClave SA, Sexton LK, Spain DA, et al. Enteral tube feeding in the intensive care unit: factors impeding adequate delivery. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:1252–1258.[Medline]
  31. Lukan J, McClave S, Lowen C, et al. Poor validity of residual volume as a marker for risk of aspiration [abstract]. Presented at: Nutrition Week; February 2002; San Diego, Calif.
  32. Jooste CA, Mustoe J, Collee G. Metoclopramide improves gastric motility in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:464–468.[Medline]
  33. Bowling TE. Enteral-feeding-related diarrhoea: proposed causes and possible solutions. Proc Nutr Soc. 1995;54:579–590.[Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Crit Care NurseHome page
A. M. Bourgault, L. Ipe, J. Weaver, S. Swartz, and P. J. O'Dea
Development of Evidence-Based Guidelines and Critical Care Nurses ' Knowledge of Enteral Feeding
Crit. Care Nurse, August 1, 2007; 27(4): 17 - 29.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Nutr Clin PractHome page
J. Wooley and R. Pomerantz
The Efficacy of an Enteral Access Protocol for Feeding Trauma Patients
Nutr Clin Pract, June 1, 2005; 20(3): 348 - 353.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Respond to This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Right arrow Take the CE Test
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by George, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roberts, S. R.
Right arrow Articles by George, C.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS