RESUMO
Enteral nutrition support (ENS) may be administered by continuous administration or by intermittent bolus, but few studies have compared the advantages and limitations associated with these methods in the trauma patient population. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the impact of continuous vs intermittent nasogastric enteral feeding on gastrointestinal tolerance, pulmonary aspiration, and nutritional indices. A survey of medical and surgical intensive care unit nursing staff was performed to assess perceptions and attitudes toward these 2 delivery methods. Eighteen trauma patients [Injury Severity Score (ISS) > or = 20] were enrolled in the study; 9 received continuous ENS (CENS) and 9 received intermittent bolus ENS (IENS). Interruption of ENS delivery occurred in more IENS than CENS patients due to elevated residuals and emesis. Diarrhea occurred in more patients (5/9 vs 2/9) and for a longer duration (14/65 vs 6/49 ENS days) in the IENS group compared with the CENS group. Aspiration was detected in 1 IENS patient. Method of nutrient delivery did not seem to influence urine urea nitrogen (UUN) measurements or prealbumin concentrations. Nurses surveyed in the study (n = 25) preferred CENS (84%) compared with IENS (12%). Data from this study suggest that CENS through a nasoenteric feeding tube may facilitate nutrient intake with less gastrointestinal complications in severely injured trauma patients compared with IENS. In addition, the majority of nurses surveyed preferred the continuous method for nutrient delivery.
RESUMO
A paucity of information is available on the use of parenteral nutrition (PN) in patients undergoing peripheral blood stem cell transplantation (PBSCT). To characterize the utilization of PN in patients undergoing PBSCT, we conducted a retrospective chart review study on adult patients receiving autologous and allogeneic PBSCT. Data collection included nutritional parameters such as indications for PN, days of PN administration, and PN-associated complications (i.e., metabolic, infectious, and mechanical). Outcome parameters assessed included length of hospitalization, days to engraftment, graft versus host disease (GVHD), and veno-occlusive disease (VOD). A total of twenty-one consecutive patients were evaluated with 12 receiving allogeneic PBSCT and 9 receiving autologous PBSCT. The allogeneic group received PN for a mean of 25 days compared to 21 days for the autologous group. The rate of metabolic abnormalities was significantly higher in the allogeneic group compared to the autologous group (1.02 abnormalities/PN days vs 0.61 abnormalities/PN day, p < 0.05), but mechanical and infectious complications were similar between the two groups. Length of hospitalization, days to engraftment, incidence of GVHD and VOD did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, mortality prior to discharge was significantly higher in the allogeneic vs autologous group (58% vs 0%, p < 0.05). We conclude that allogeneic PBSCT patients appear to be at a greater risk for metabolic complications while receiving PN as compared to autologous PBSCT patients. As nausea and vomiting are two primary reasons for initiation of PN in this patient population, further studies of aggressive antiemetic therapy may prove to decrease the need for PN in PBSCT patients.
