Gastrointestinal Tolerance and Protein Absorption Markers with a New Peptide Enteral Formula Compared to a Standard Intact Protein Enteral Formula in Critically Ill Patients.

The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate gastrointestinal tolerance and protein absorption markers with a new enteral peptide formula (PF) compared to an isocaloric enteral intact protein standard formula (SF) containing the same amount of protein in ICU patients. Patients admitted to a cardio-thoracic intensive care unit expected to receive tube feeding for ≥5 days were randomized to receive either PF (1.5 kcal/mL) or SF in a double-blind manner for ≤14 days. Twenty-six patients were randomized (13 SF and 13 PF) and 23 (12 SF and 11 PF) completed at least 5 days of product administration. There were no statistically significant differences between the feeds during the first 5 days of intervention for diarrhea (SF:3 (23%); PF:5 (39%), p = 0.388), vomiting (SF:1 (8%); PF:2 (15%), p = 0.549), constipation (SF:7 (54%), PF:3 (23%), p = 0.115), and high gastric residual volume (>500 mL: SF:1 (8%); PF: 2 (15%), p = 0.535). There were no differences in plasma amino acids or urinary markers of protein absorption and metabolism. In conclusion, no major differences were found in tolerability and protein absorption markers between the standard intact protein formula and the peptide formula.

Amino Acid Availability of a Dairy and Vegetable Protein Blend Compared to Single Casein, Whey, Soy, and Pea Proteins: A Double-Blind, Cross-Over Trial.

Protein quality is important for patients needing medical nutrition, especially those dependent on tube feeding. A blend of dairy and vegetable proteins (35% whey, 25% casein, 20% soy, 20% pea; P4) developed to obtain a more balanced amino acid profile with higher chemical scores, was compared to its constituent single proteins. Fourteen healthy elderly subjects received P4, whey, casein, soy, and pea (18 g/360 mL bolus) on five separate visits. Blood samples were collected at baseline until 240 min after intake. Amino acid availability was calculated using incremental maximal concentration (iCmax) and area under the curve (iAUC). Availability for P4 as a sum of all amino acids was similar to casein (iCmax and iAUC) and whey (iCmax) and higher vs. soy (iCmax and iAUC) and pea (iCmax). Individual amino acid availability (iCmax and iAUC) showed different profiles reflecting the composition of the protein sources: availability of leucine and methionine was higher for P4 vs. soy and pea; availability of arginine was higher for P4 vs. casein and whey. Conclusions: The P4 amino acid profile was reflected in post-prandial plasma levels and may be regarded as more balanced compared to the constituent single proteins.

Very high intact-protein formula successfully provides protein intake according to nutritional recommendations in overweight critically ill patients: a double-blind randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal energy and protein provision through enteral nutrition is essential for critically ill patients. However, in clinical practice, the intake achieved is often far below the recommended targets. Because no polymeric formula with sufficient protein content is available, adequate protein intake can be achieved only by supplemental amino acids or semi-elemental formula administration. In the present study, we investigated whether protein intake can be increased with a new, very high intact-protein formula (VHPF) for enteral feeding. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial, 44 overweight (body mass index ≥ 25 kg/m2) intensive care unit patients received either a VHPF (8 g/100 kcal) or a commercially available standard high protein formula (SHPF) (5 g/100 kcal). Protein and energy intake, gastrointestinal tolerance (gastric residual volume, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation), adverse events, and serious adverse events were recorded. Total serum amino acid levels were measured at baseline and day 5. RESULTS: The primary outcome, protein intake at day 5, was 1.49 g/kg body weight (95% CI 1.21-1.78) and 0.76 g/kg body weight (95% CI 0.49-1.03, P < 0.001) for VHPF and SHPF, respectively. Daily protein intake was statistically significantly higher in the VHPF group compared with the SHPF group from day 2 to day 10. Protein intake in the VHPF group as a percentage of target (1.5 g/kg ideal body weight) was 74.7% (IQR 53.2-87.6%) and 111.6% (IQR 51.7-130.7%) during days 1-3 and days 4-10, respectively. Serum amino acid concentrations were higher at day 5 in the VHPF group than in the SHPF group (P = 0.031). No differences were found in energy intake, measures of gastrointestinal tolerance, and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral feeding with VHPF (8 g/100 kcal) resulted in higher protein intake and plasma amino acid concentrations than an isocaloric SHPF (5 g/100 kcal), without an increase in energy intake. This VHPF facilitates feeding according to nutritional guidelines and is suitable as a first-line nutritional treatment for critically ill overweight patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR5643 . Registered on 2 February 2016.

Noncoagulating Enteral Formula Can Empty Faster From the Stomach: A Double-Blind, Randomized Crossover Trial Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

BACKGROUND: The gastric accumulation of enteral formulas in tube-fed patients leads to an increased risk of vomiting and regurgitation. Gastric secretion-induced coagulation of proteins in enteral formulas might lead to gastric accumulation of solid protein particles that further increase the risk of upper digestive intolerance. This study used magnetic resonance imaging to noninvasively assess the half-emptying time (t50) of enteral formulas differing in protein composition. METHODS: Three isocaloric (450 kcal) and isovolumetric (300 mL) enteral formulas, 1 with a noncoagulating P4 protein blend and 2 with coagulating casein-dominant protein blends, were compared in a double-blind, randomized, 3-way crossover study in 21 healthy volunteers. Gastric content emptying curves were fitted with the LinExp model to compute t50 and the parameter κ with κ > 1 reflecting the accumulation of gastric secretion. t50 and κ were compared between all 3 enteral formulas. The formula that emptied fastest was identified by an ordinal mixed model using the ranks of t50. RESULTS: As indicated by values for κ > 1, all enteral formulas induced gastric secretion. No differences were detected for t50. However, the noncoagulating formula emptied fastest in 74% of all participants (P = .004). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a noncoagulating enteral formula can empty faster from the stomach compared with coagulating formulas in a large cohort of healthy volunteers. Investigations on the efficiency of the noncoagulating P4 protein blend in patients requiring tube feeding will further elucidate its potential for reducing upper digestive intolerance during enteral nutrition. Trial NTR2979.

A novel protein mixture containing vegetable proteins renders enteral nutrition products non-coagulating after in vitro gastric digestion.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Non-coagulation of protein from enteral nutrition (EN) in the stomach is considered to improve gastric emptying and may result in reduced upper gastrointestinal complications such as reflux and aspiration pneumonia. For the development of a new EN protein mixture with reduced gastric coagulation, the coagulating properties of individual proteins, a novel blend of four proteins (P4 protein blend) and commercial EN products were investigated. METHODS: A semi-dynamic, computer controlled setup was developed to mimic gastric digestion. The coagulation behaviour of 150 ml protein solutions and EN products was investigated. These were heat-treated calcium caseinate, sodium caseinate, whey, soy and pea protein, and the P4 protein blend comprising of the latter four (all solutions 6% w/v protein), four new enteral nutrition product varieties (New Nutrison® .0 or 1.5 kcal/ml, with and without MultiFibre MF6™) based on the P4 protein blend and two other commercially available casein dominant EN products (T1 and T2). RESULTS: Calcium caseinate and sodium caseinate yielded a total wet coagulate of 43.5 ± 0.7 g and 52.7 ± 6.2 g, respectively. Whey, soy, pea and the P4 protein blend did not produce any measurable coagulate. T1 and T2 resulted in a total wet coagulate of 37.5 ± 0.8 g and 57.3 ± 0.8 g, respectively, while all new EN product varieties based on the P4 protein blend did not produce any measurable coagulate. CONCLUSIONS: The P4 protein blend renders EN product varieties non-coagulating after in vitro gastric digestion.