ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Home enteral nutrition is a nutritional intervention that can help in the recovery of health after hospital discharge. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the nutritional composition of different categories of enteral nutrition administered to patients at home, the relationship with their nutritional status, and to compare the nutritional recommendations to the nutritional content provided by the different categories of enteral nutrition. METHODS: 111 samples of homemade enteral preparations (HEP), blended enteral preparations (BEP) and commercial enteral formulas (CEF) were collected from patients' homes. Physicochemical analyses were performed on the enteral formulations, and anthropometric and body composition evaluations were performed on the patients. Comparisons between the infused and prescribed nutritional content were performed. Shapiro-Wilk, Wilcoxon, and Kruskal-Wallis tests with post hoc DMS were conducted. RESULTS: The enteral nutrition categories demonstrated adequacy in relation to the physical analyses. The energy content was similar among the evaluated categories. The BEP and CEF presented higher levels of total solids, proteins, lipids, caloric density and non-protein calories; they also had a lower volume of infused/day content, and both were classified as normocaloric. The HEP were classified as hypocaloric. Regarding the infused content in relation to the recommended content, the HEP presented lower levels of protein and lipids; the CEF showed lower lipid and carbohydrate content, and the BEP presented adequacy in all nutrients. Most of the evaluated anthropometric parameters did not differ between the enteral nutrition categories. The anthropometric indicator of arm circumference (cm and %) was higher in patients receiving CEF and BEP, and the triceps skin fold (mm) was higher in patients receiving CEF and HEP. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended to review the macronutrient content in nutritional prescriptions, regardless of the enteral nutrition category used. Most anthropometric parameters did not differ between the categories of enteral nutrition administered, especially those that were indicative of lean body mass.
Subject(s)
Enteral Nutrition , Nutritional Status , Energy Intake , Humans , Lipids , Nutritional SupportABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of home enteral nutrition depends on the supply and delivery of the prescribed nutrients. This study compared the macronutrient and energy values of home-prepared enteral tube feeding analyzed in the laboratory with the same information calculated from labels and food composition tables. METHODS: A total of 107 enteral formulations were analyzed: 66 commercial enteral formulas (CEFs), 19 homemade enteral preparations, and 22 blended enteral preparations (BEPs). The values of macronutrients and energy and the ratio between the values found in the laboratory and the calculated values were all evaluated. The tolerance limit of acceptable variation was 20%. The results were subjected to chemometric methods using principal component analysis (PCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA). RESULTS: In the three categories of the enteral formulations, the calculated values for protein and fat were higher than those obtained in the laboratory. The calculated values for energy were higher than those obtained in the laboratory for the BEPs and CEFs. The CEFs had the highest percentage within the limit of acceptable variation for carbohydrate and protein, whereas the BEPs presented the lowest values for fat and energy. In the exploratory analysis of data using PCA and HCA, it was possible to verify similarities and discrepancies between the enteral formulations analyzed in the laboratory with those calculated from the labels and food composition tables. CONCLUSION: The enteral formulations showed differences between the values of macronutrients and energy analyzed in the laboratory and those calculated from labels and/or food composition tables.