Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>The best mode of delivering enteral nutrition (EN) in the intensive care unit (ICU) is still debated: several consensus guidelines (American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition [ASPEN] and the European Society for Parental and Enteral Nutrition [ESPEN]) suggest that EN in ICU should be preferably delivered continuously rather intermittently, but some authors highlight that the first is unphysiological. The aim of this systematic review (SR) is to summarize available clinical evidence related to safety and efficacy of continuous EN (C‐EN) or intermittent EN (I‐EN) in patients in the ICU, in relation to appropriated supply on nutrition status, gastrointestinal symptoms or tolerance, and risks on respiratory tract infections. A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar was performed comparing C‐EN vs I‐EN, and 4196 published studies were screened. Nineteen studies were selected for this SR reporting types of ICU, nutrition protocols, and study period. Effects of C‐EN vs I‐EN were presented according to the impact on nutrition status, digestive tract, and respiratory tract. The contrasting results confirmed that the optimal delivering mode of EN remains controversial. Future studies dedicated to identifying the benefits and limitations of C‐EN or I‐EN should be realized.</jats:p>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>Continuous enteral nutrition (CEN) remains standard practice in intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Intermittent enteral nutrition (IEN) may be a suitable alternative method. This meta‐analysis aims to investigate the safety, tolerance, and effectiveness of IEN compared with that of CEN in critically ill adults in the ICU.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for studies published up until April 30, 2020, along with manual searches in bibliographies. Eligible studies were trials that compared CEN with IEN feeding in the ICU and reported on at least one of the relevant outcomes (nutrition intake, gastric residual volume [GRV], aspiration pneumonia, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal distension, and glycemic variability). Secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS) and mortality. The Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomized trials was used to assess methodological quality.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Ten studies with 664 participants were included in the meta‐analysis. Most studies had an overall “high” risk of bias. Incidence of vomiting was significantly higher in CEN than in IEN groups (risk ratio, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.23–6.23). There were no significant differences between CEN and IEN groups for nutrition intake, GRV, incidence of aspiration pneumonia, diarrhea, abdominal distension, ICU LOS, and mortality. Definition and reporting of outcome measures were not standardized across studies; hence, this heterogeneity limits the generalizability of results.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>Overall, the safety, tolerance, and effectiveness of CEN and IEN were found to be comparable. Future studies should explore monitoring larger sample sizes to determine best feeding practices in the ICU.</jats:p></jats:sec>