Dataset Information

A new high protein-to-energy enteral formula with a whey protein hydrolysate to achieve protein targets in critically ill patients: a prospective observational tolerability study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Current guidelines and expert recommendations stress the need to implement enteral feeds with a higher protein-to-energy ratio to meet protein requirements as recommended while avoiding gastrointestinal side effects and energy overfeeding in ICU patients.

Materials and methods

Prospective tolerability study in 18 critically ill patients with a high protein formula (high protein-to-energy (HP:E) formula = Fresubin® Intensive; HPG) compared to a contemporary matched conventional therapy group (CTG). The primary outcome was GI intolerance defined as ≥300 ml daily gastric residual volume (GRV), vomiting, or diarrhea on days 1 and 2. Secondary outcomes were the percentage of patients reaching their protein target on day 4 and overall protein intake.

Results

Groups were comparable regarding demographic characteristics, disease severity, organ failures, mechanical ventilation, and NUTRIC score at baseline. Eighteen patients completed the 4-day feeding period. The number of events of GRV of ≥300 ml/day was equal in both groups (33.3%). The incidence of diarrhea and vomiting was low in the HPG (two patients concerned). EN did not need to be discontinued due to intolerance in any group. Seventy-two percent of patients reached protein targets ≥1.3 g/kgBW/d within 4 days after initiation of enteral feeding, which was superior to the CTG (33%). Post-hoc testing showed group differences of protein intake between HPG and CTG were significant at t = 72 h and t = 96 h. Energy targets were met in both groups.

Conclusion

The HP:E formula containing 33% whey protein hydrolysate is well tolerated in this tolerability study. Due to the HP:E ratio protein targets can be reached faster. Larger randomized trials are needed to confirm preliminary results.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02678325. Registered 2 May 2016.

SUBMITTER: Tedeschi-Jockers F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8223230 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the impact of implementing an enteral nutrition algorithm on achieving optimal enteral nutrition delivery in the PICU.DesignProspective pre/post implementation audit of enteral nutrition practices.SettingOne 29-bed medical/surgical PICU in a freestanding, university-affiliated children's hospital.PatientsConsecutive patients admitted to the PICU over two 4-week periods pre and post implementation, with a stay of more than 24 hours who received enteral nutrition.InterventionsBased on the results of our previous study, we developed and systematically implemented a stepwise, evidence and consensus-based algorithm for initiating, advancing, and maintaining enteral nutrition in critically ill children. Three months after implementation, we prospectively recorded clinical characteristics, nutrient delivery, enteral nutrition interruptions, parenteral nutrition use, and ability to reach energy goal in eligible children over a 4-week period. Clinical and nutritional variables were compared between the pre and postintervention cohorts. Time to achieving energy goal was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis.Measurements and main resultsEighty patients were eligible for this study and were compared to a cohort of 80 patients in the preimplementation audit. There were no significant differences in median age, gender, need for mechanical ventilation, time to initiating enteral nutrition, or use of postpyloric feeding between the two cohorts. We recorded a significant decrease in the number of avoidable episodes of enteral nutrition interruption (3 vs 51, p < 0.0001) and the prevalence and duration of parenteral nutrition dependence in patients with avoidable enteral nutrition interruptions in the postintervention cohort. Median time to reach energy goal decreased from 4 days to 1 day (p < 0.0001), with a higher proportion of patients reaching this goal (99% vs 61%, p = 0.01).ConclusionsThe implementation of an enteral nutrition algorithm significantly improved enteral nutrition delivery and decreased reliance on parenteral nutrition in critically ill children. Energy intake goal was reached earlier in a higher proportion of patients.

Project description:BackgroundWhen human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins) are often used because they are perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence.ObjectivesTo assess the effect of feeding preterm infants with hydrolysed formula (versus standard cow's milk formulas) on the risk of feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, and other morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.Search methodsWe used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (to April 2017), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.Selection criteriaRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe identified 11 trials for inclusion in the review. All trials were small (total participants 665) and had various methodological limitations including uncertainty about methods to ensure allocation concealment and blinding. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of gestational age less than about 34 weeks or birth weight less than about 1750 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted. Most trials found no effects on feed intolerance assessed variously as mean prefeed gastric residual volume, incidence of abdominal distention or other concerning gastrointestinal signs, or time taken to achieve full enteral feeds (meta-analysis was limited because studies used different measures). Meta-analysis found no effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.34; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 5 trials, 385 infants) (low quality evidence; downgraded for imprecision and design weaknesses).Authors' conclusionsThe identified trials provide only low quality evidence about the effects of feeding preterm infants with protein hydrolysate versus standard formula. The existing data did not support conclusions that feeding with protein hydrolysate affects the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis. Further large, pragmatic trials are needed to provide more reliable and precise estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundWhen human milk is not available for feeding preterm infants, protein hydrolysate, rather than standard cow's milk formulas (with intact proteins), is often used because it is perceived as being tolerated better and less likely to lead to complications. However, protein hydrolysate formulas are more expensive than standard formulas, and concern exists that their use in practice is not supported by high-quality evidence.ObjectivesTo assess the effects of feeding preterm infants hydrolysed formula (vs standard cow's milk formula) on risk of feed intolerance, necrotising enterocolitis, and other morbidity and mortality.Search methodsWe used the standard Cochrane Neonatal search strategy including electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 1), in the Cochrane Library; Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2019); Ovid Embase (1980 to 28 January 2019); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (28 January 2019), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews.Selection criteriaRandomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard (non-hydrolysed) cow's milk formula.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe identified 11 trials for inclusion in the review. All trials were small (total participants 665) and had various methodological limitations including uncertainty about methods to ensure allocation concealment and blinding. Most participants were clinically stable preterm infants of less than about 34 weeks' gestational age or with birth weight less than about 1750 g. Fewer participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth restricted. Most trials found no effects on feed intolerance, assessed variously as mean pre-feed gastric residual volume, incidence of abdominal distension or other gastrointestinal signs of concern, or time taken to achieve full enteral feeds (meta-analysis was limited because studies used different measures). Meta-analysis showed no effect on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio 1.10, 95% CI 0.36 to 3.34; risk difference 0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04; 5 trials, 385 infants) (low-certainty evidence; downgraded for imprecision and design weaknesses).Authors' conclusionsThe identified trials provide only low-certainty evidence about the effects of feeding preterm infants protein hydrolysate versus standard formula. Existing data do not support conclusions that feeding protein hydrolysate affects the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis. Additional large, pragmatic trials are needed to provide more reliable and precise estimates of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.