RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES@#A dietary restriction on the intake of fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) has been reported to be effective in the treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) tract complications. Enteral nutrition (EN) is widely used for patients who cannot obtain their nutritional requirements orally, but many studies have reported EN complications, especially diarrhea, in up to 50% of patients. @*SUBJECTS/METHODS@#We performed a single-center, non-randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of a low-FODMAP enteral formula on GI complications in patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Patients in the ICU who needed EN (n = 66) were alternately assigned to the low-FODMAP group (n = 33) or the high-FODMAP group (n = 33). @*RESULTS@#Anthropometric and biochemical parameters were measured, and stool assessment was performed using King's Stool Chart. We excluded patients who received laxatives, GI motility agents, proton pump inhibitors, antifungal agents, and antibiotics other than β-lactams. There were no differences in GI symptoms during 7 days of intervention, including bowel sound, abdominal distension, and vomiting between the 2 groups. However, diarrhea was more frequent in the high-FODMAP group (7/33 patients) than the lowFODMAP group (1/33 patients) (P = 0.044). @*CONCLUSIONS@#Our results suggest that a low-FODMAP enteral formula may be a practical therapeutic approach for patients who exhibit enteral formula complications. Our study warrants further randomized clinical trials and multicenter trials.
RESUMO
Purpose@#The metabolic activity and demand usually increase in seriously ill patients, especially in patients with a brain injury (BI). These nutritional demands have been traditionally satisfied using predictive equations (PEs). Recently, indirect calorimetry (IC) has been used widely because it is more accurate than other methods. This study measured the energy expenditures (EE) using IC (GE, CARESCAPE B650, Helsinki, Finland) and calculated the PEs simultaneously in patients with BI. @*Methods@#This study was conducted on 55 patients with a BI for three years (2017.7∼2020.8), who were mechanically ventilated within a hospital for ≤seven days. The EE values using IC were measured once in each patient, and the EE values using PE were calculated using 5 PEs (ESPEN, Harris-Benedict, HB; Frankenfield, FK; Penn state, PS; and Faisy) at the same time.The 55 patients were divided into two groups, acute group (39 patients; ≤3 hospital days group, AG) and subacute group (16 patients; ＞3 hospital days group, SG) according to the time, and the values were obtained. @*Results@#There were no differences in the patient’s characteristics between the two groups, including age, gender, severity of the condition (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), and anthropometric parameters. In AG, the energy expenditure values using PEs were significantly lower than those using IC in the three PEs (IC 1,712.0±476 kcal, ESPEN 1,558.6±324 kcal, P=0.038, HB 1,582.4±273 kcal, P=0.037, PS 1,530.8±340 kcal, P=0.005). In SG, the EE value using PEs did not differ significantly from that using IC. @*Conclusion@#An accurate assessment of EE is critical for seriously ill patients. These results showed that the previously well-known PEs might not be correct, particularly in acute patients with BI. Therefore, it is recommended that the EE values be obtained using IC, at least in acute patients with BI.
RESUMO
Purpose@#The metabolic activity and demand usually increase in seriously ill patients, especially in patients with a brain injury (BI). These nutritional demands have been traditionally satisfied using predictive equations (PEs). Recently, indirect calorimetry (IC) has been used widely because it is more accurate than other methods. This study measured the energy expenditures (EE) using IC (GE, CARESCAPE B650, Helsinki, Finland) and calculated the PEs simultaneously in patients with BI. @*Methods@#This study was conducted on 55 patients with a BI for three years (2017.7∼2020.8), who were mechanically ventilated within a hospital for ≤seven days. The EE values using IC were measured once in each patient, and the EE values using PE were calculated using 5 PEs (ESPEN, Harris-Benedict, HB; Frankenfield, FK; Penn state, PS; and Faisy) at the same time.The 55 patients were divided into two groups, acute group (39 patients; ≤3 hospital days group, AG) and subacute group (16 patients; ＞3 hospital days group, SG) according to the time, and the values were obtained. @*Results@#There were no differences in the patient’s characteristics between the two groups, including age, gender, severity of the condition (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), and anthropometric parameters. In AG, the energy expenditure values using PEs were significantly lower than those using IC in the three PEs (IC 1,712.0±476 kcal, ESPEN 1,558.6±324 kcal, P=0.038, HB 1,582.4±273 kcal, P=0.037, PS 1,530.8±340 kcal, P=0.005). In SG, the EE value using PEs did not differ significantly from that using IC. @*Conclusion@#An accurate assessment of EE is critical for seriously ill patients. These results showed that the previously well-known PEs might not be correct, particularly in acute patients with BI. Therefore, it is recommended that the EE values be obtained using IC, at least in acute patients with BI.
