• Int J Nurs Stud · Jan 2021

    Review Meta Analysis

    Intermittent versus continuous enteral nutrition on feeding intolerance in critically ill adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    • Yuanyuan Ma, Jun Cheng, Liang Liu, Kexi Chen, Yuli Fang, Guanliang Wang, Jingci Zhu, and Liusheng Chen.
    • 75th Army Group Hospital, Dali, Yunnan, China.
    • Int J Nurs Stud. 2021 Jan 1; 113: 103783.

    ObjectivesEnteral formula delivery strategy is an important part of enteral nutrition. We aimed to synthesize up-to-date studies to clarify the effects of intermittent versus continuous feeding on feeding intolerance during enteral nutrition in critically ill adults.DesignA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Data SourcesEmbase, PubMed, Information Sciences Institute Web of Science, CINAHL EBSCO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases were searched from inception to 17th of June 2020.Review MethodsThe Cochrane "risk of bias" tool was used to assess the quality of individual studies, and the quality of each outcome was assessed by GRADE approach. Fixed or random effect meta-analysis was used pending the presence of heterogeneity. Dichotomous data synthesis was presented as risk ratio and 95% confidence interval, and quantitative data synthesis was shown as mean difference and 95% confidence interval.ResultsFourteen trials with 1025 critically ill adults were included in the meta-analysis. We found that intermittent feeding could significantly increase the occurrence of feeding intolerance (risk ratio = 1.64, 95% confidence interval = 1.23 to 2.18, P < 0.001) compared with continuous feeding, as well as the incidence of high gastric volume (risk ratio = 3.62, 95% confidence interval = 1.43-9.12, P = 0.006) and aspiration (risk ratio = 3.29, 95% confidence interval = 1.18-9.16, P = 0.02) in > 1-week trial duration, while constipation rate was reduced in intermittent feeding group (risk ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval = 0.45-0.98, P = 0.04). Patients in intermittent feeding group received more calories compared with continuous feeding group (mean difference = 184.81, 95% confidence interval = 56.61-313.01, P = 0.005). The quality of all evidence synthesis was "low" or "very low".ConclusionsIn critically ill adults, continuous feeding was associated with lower overall incidence of feeding intolerance, especially in high gastric volume and aspiration. However, decreased constipation incidence and more calorie intake were observed in intermittent feeding group. Because quality of the synthesized evidence was "low" or "very low", there is considerable uncertainty about this estimate.Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,624,503 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.