These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Incidence of aspiration and gastrointestinal complications in critically ill patients using continuous versus bolus infusion of enteral nutrition: a pseudo-randomised controlled trial.
    Author: Kadamani I, Itani M, Zahran E, Taha N.
    Journal: Aust Crit Care; 2014 Nov; 27(4):188-93. PubMed ID: 24508516.
    Abstract:
    UNLABELLED: Enteral nutrition (EN) for the critically ill and mechanically ventilated patients can be administered either via the continuous or bolus methods. However, there is insufficient evidence supporting which of these methods may have a lower risk of aspiration and gastrointestinal (GI) complications. This study was conducted in order to identify the incidence of aspiration and GI complications using continuous enteral nutrition (CEN) and bolus enteral nutrition (BEN) in critically ill patients at the Rafik Hariri University Hospital (RHUH), Beirut, Lebanon. METHODS: A pseudo-randomised controlled trial was conducted on 30 critically ill mechanically ventilated patients receiving EN for more than 72 h. Patients were randomly assigned into the following groups: an experimental group that received CEN and a control group that received BEN. Furthermore, patients' health characteristics data as well as the incidence of aspiration and GI complications (high gastric residual volume "HGRV", vomiting, diarrhoea, and constipation) were subsequently collected. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the effects of CEN versus BEN groups on the occurrence of aspiration, HGRV, diarrhoea, or vomiting (P>0.05). However, constipation was significantly greater in patients receiving CEN (10 patients (66.7%)) as compared with those receiving BEN (3 patients (20%)) (P=0.025). CONCLUSION: CEN versus BEN methods did not affect the incidence of aspiration, HGRV, vomiting or diarrhoea. However, the incidence of constipation was significantly greater in patients receiving CEN.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]