Sumritpradit P, Shantavasinkul PC, Ungpinitpong W, Noorit P, Gajaseni C. Effect of high-protein peptide-based formula compared with isocaloric isonitrogenous polymeric formula in critically ill surgical patient.
World J Gastrointest Surg 2024;
16:1765-1774. [PMID:
38983323 PMCID:
PMC11230013 DOI:
10.4240/wjgs.v16.i6.1765]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/26/2024] [Revised: 04/03/2024] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 06/27/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Malnutrition is common in critically ill patients, and it is associated with an increased risk of complications. Early enteral nutrition with adequate caloric and protein intake is critical nevertheless it is difficult to achieve. Peptide-based formulas have been shown to be beneficial in patients with feeding intolerance. However, there are limited studies showing the efficacy and safety of high-protein peptide-based formula in critically ill surgical patients.
AIM
To determine the effects of a high-protein peptide formulation on gastrointestinal tolerance, nutritional status, biochemical changes, and adverse events in patients in the surgery intensive care unit (SICU) compared to an isocaloric isonitrogenous standard polymeric formulation.
METHODS
This study was a multi-center double-blind, randomized controlled trial. We enrolled adult patients in the surgical intensive care unit, age ≥ 15 years and expected to receive enteral feeding for at least 5-14 d post-operation. They were randomly assigned to receive either the high-protein peptide-based formula or the isocaloric isonitrogenous standard formula for 14 d. Gastric residual volume (GRV), nutritional status, body composition and biochemical parameters were assessed at baseline and on days 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, and 14.
RESULTS
A total of 19 patients were enrolled, 9 patients in the peptide-based formula group and 10 patients in the standard formula group. During the study period, there were no differences of the average GRV, body weight, body composition, nutritional status and biochemical parameters in the patients receiving peptide-based formula, compared to the standard regimen. However, participants in the standard formula lost their body weight, body mass index (BMI) and skeletal muscle mass significantly. While body weight, BMI and muscle mass were maintained in the peptide-based formula, from baseline to day 14. Moreover, the participants in the peptide-based formula tended to reach their caloric target faster than the standard formula.
CONCLUSION
The study emphasizes the importance of early nutritional support in the SICU and showed the efficacy and safety of a high-protein, peptide-based formula in meeting caloric and protein intake targets while maintaining body weight and muscle mass.
Collapse