Diminished functional association between proximal and distal gastric motility in critically ill patients

Monitoring of gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition

BACKGROUND

The main goal of enteral nutrition (EN) is to manage malnutrition in order to improve clinical outcomes. However, EN may increase the risks of vomiting or aspiration pneumonia during gastrointestinal dysfunction. Consequently, monitoring of gastric residual volume (GRV), that is, to measure GRV periodically and modulate the speed of enteral feeding according to GRV, has been recommended as a management goal in many intensive care units. Yet, there is a lack of robust evidence that GRV monitoring reduces the level of complications during EN. The best protocol of GRV monitoring is currently unknown, and thus the precise efficacy and safety profiles of GRV monitoring remain to be ascertained.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the efficacy and safety of GRV monitoring during EN.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for relevant studies on 3 May 2021. We also checked reference lists of included studies for additional information and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), randomized cross-over trials, and cluster-RCTs investigating the effects of GRV monitoring during EN. We imposed no restrictions on the language of publication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the search results for eligible studies and extracted trial-level information from each included study, including methodology and design, characteristics of study participants, interventions, and outcome measures. We assessed risk of bias for each study using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We followed guidance from the GRADE framework to assess the overall certainty of evidence across outcomes. We used a random-effects analytical model to perform quantitative synthesis of the evidence. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous and mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies involving 1585 participants. All studies were RCTs conducted in ICU settings. Two studies (417 participants) compared less-frequent (less than eight hours) monitoring of GRV against a regimen of more-frequent (eight hours or greater) monitoring. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of frequent monitoring of GRV on mortality rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.37; I² = 8%; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.83; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD 2.00 days, 95% CI -2.15 to 6.15; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of vomiting (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.09; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (500 participants) compared no GRV monitoring with frequent (12 hours or less) monitoring. Similarly, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of no monitoring of GRV on mortality rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.53 days, 95% CI -4.47 to 1.40; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of vomiting (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). One study (322 participants) assessed the impact of GRV threshold (500 mL per six hours) on clinical outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the threshold for GRV at time of aspiration on mortality rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.38; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.90 days, 95% CI -2.60 to 4.40; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (140 participants) explored the effects of returning or discarding the aspirated/drained GRV. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of discarding or returning the aspirated/drained GRV on the incidence of vomiting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.63; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence) and volume aspirated from the stomach (MD -7.30 mL, 95% CI -26.67 to 12.06, I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) We found no studies comparing the effects of protocol-based EN strategies that included GRV-related criteria against strategies that did not include such criteria.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GRV on clinical outcomes including mortality, pneumonia, vomiting, and length of hospital stay.

Gastrointestinal dysmotility in critically ill patients

Gastrointestinal (GI) motility disorders are commonly present in critical illness. Up to 60% of critically ill patients have been reported to experience GI dysmotility of some form necessitating therapeutic intervention. It has been attributed to various factors, related to both the underlying disease and the therapeutic interventions undertaken. The assessment of motility disturbances can be challenging in critically ill patients, as the available tests used to detect abnormal motility have major limitations in the setting of an Intensive Care Unit. Critically ill patients with GI dysmotility require a multifaceted treatment approach that addresses multiple causes and utilizes multiple pharmacological pathways. In this review, we discuss the pathophysiology, assessment and management of GI dysmotility in critically ill patients.

Gut Motility Issues in Critical Illness

Acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) is common in critical illness and negatively affects outcome. A variety of definitions have been used to describe AGI, which has led to clinical confusion and hampered comparison of research studies across institutions. An international working group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine was convened to standardize definitions for AGI and provide current evidence-based understanding of its pathophysiology and management. This disorder is associated with a wide variety of signs and symptoms and may be difficult to detect, therefore a high index of suspicion is warranted.

Gastric residual volume in critically ill patients: a dead marker or still alive?

Early enteral nutrition (EN) is consistently recommended as first-line nutrition therapy in critically ill patients since it favorably alters outcome, providing both nutrition and nonnutrition benefits. However, critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation are at risk for regurgitation, pulmonary aspiration, and eventually ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). EN may increase these risks when gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is present. Gastric residual volume (GRV) is considered a surrogate parameter of GI dysfunction during the progression of enteral feeding in the early phase of critical illness and beyond. By monitoring GRV, clinicians may detect patients with delayed gastric emptying earlier and intervene with strategies that minimize or prevent VAP as one of the major risks of EN. The value of periodic GRV measurements with regard to risk reduction of VAP incidence has frequently been questioned in the past years. Increasing the GRV threshold before interrupting gastric feeding results in marginal increases in EN delivery. More recently, a large randomized clinical trial revealed that abandoning GRV monitoring did not negatively affect clinical outcomes (including VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. The results have revived the discussion on the role of GRV monitoring in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients receiving early EN. This review summarizes the most recent clinical evidence on the use of GRV monitoring in critically ill patients. Based on the clinical evidence, it discusses the pros and cons and further addresses whether GRV is a dead marker or still alive for the nutrition management of critically ill patients.

Pharmacological therapy of feed intolerance in the critically ills

Feed intolerance in the setting of critical illness is associated with higher morbidity and mortality, and thus requires promptly and effective treatment. Prokinetic agents are currently considered as the first-line therapy given issues relating to parenteral nutrition and post-pyloric placement. Currently, the agents of choice are erythromycin and metoclopramide, either alone or in combination, which are highly effective with relatively low incidence of cardiac, hemodynamic or neurological adverse effects. Diarrhea, however, can occur in up to 49% of patients who are treated with the dual prokinetic therapy, which is not associated with Clostridium difficile infection and settled soon after the cessation of the drugs. Hence, the use of prokinetic therapy over a long period or for prophylactic purpose must be avoided, and the indication for ongoing use of the drug(s) must be reviewed frequently. Second line therapy, such as total parenteral nutrition and post-pyloric feeding, must be considered once adverse effects relating the prokinetic therapy develop.

Review article: the role of gastrointestinal hormones in the treatment of delayed gastric emptying in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Delayed gastric emptying limits the administration of enteral nutrition, leading to malnutrition, which is associated with higher mortality and morbidity. Currently available prokinetics have limitations in terms of sustained efficacy and side effects.

AIM

To summarise the mechanisms of action and to discuss the possible utility of gastrointestinal hormones to prevent or treat delayed gastric emptying in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for articles discussing 'delayed gastric emptying', 'enteral nutrition', 'treatment', 'gastrointestinal hormones', 'prokinetic', 'agonist', 'antagonist' and 'critically ill patients'.

RESULTS

Motilin and ghrelin receptor agonists initiate the migrating motor complex in the stomach, which accelerates gastric emptying. Cholecystokinin, glucagon-like peptide-1 and peptide YY have an inhibiting effect on gastric emptying; therefore, antagonising these gastrointestinal hormones may have therapeutic potential. Other gastrointestinal hormones appear less promising.

CONCLUSIONS

Manipulation of endogenous secretion, physiological replacement and administration of gastrointestinal hormones in pharmacological doses is likely to have therapeutic potential in the treatment of delayed gastric emptying. Future challenges in this field will include the search for candidates with improved selectivity and favourable kinetic properties.

[Guidelines for specialized nutritional and metabolic support in the critically-ill patient. Update. Consensus of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units-Spanish Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (SEMICYUC-SENPE): neurocritical patient]

Neurocritical patients require specialized nutritional support due to their intense catabolism and prolonged fasting. The preferred route of nutrient administration is the gastrointestinal route, especially the gastric route. Alternatives are the transpyloric route or mixed enteral-parenteral nutrition if an effective nutritional volume of more than 60% cannot be obtained. Total calore intake ranges from 20-30 kcal/kg/day, depending on the period of the clinical course, with protein intake higher than 20% of total calories (hyperproteic diet). Nutritional support should be initiated early. The incidence of gastrointestinal complications is generally higher to other critically-ill patients, the most frequent complication being an increase in gastric residual volume. As in other critically-ill patients, glycemia should be closely monitored and maintained below 150 mg/dL.

Gastrointestinal dysmotility: clinical consequences and management of the critically ill patient

Gastrointestinal dysmotility is a common feature of critical illness, with a number of significant implications that include malnutrition secondary to reduced feed tolerance and absorption, reflux and aspiration resulting in reduced lung function and ventilator-associated pneumonia, bacterial overgrowth and possible translocation causing nosocomial sepsis. Prokinetic agent administration can improve gastric emptying and caloric delivery, but its effect on nutrient absorption and clinical outcomes is, as yet, unclear. Postpyloric delivery of nutrition has not yet been demonstrated to increase caloric intake or improve clinical outcomes.

[Promotility drugs use in critical care: indications and limits?]

Enteral feeding is often limited by gastric and intestinal motility disturbances in critically ill patients, particularly in patients with shock. So, promotility agents are frequently used to improve tolerance to enteral nutrition. This review summaries the pathophysiology, presents the available pharmacological strategies, the clinical data, the counter-indications and the principal limits. The clinical data are poor. No study demonstrates a positive effect on clinical outcomes. Metoclopramide and erythromycin seems to be the more effective. Considering the risk of antibiotic resistance, the first line use of erythromycin should be avoided in favor of metoclopramide.

Gastric motor and sensory function

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Abnormalities of gastric sensory and motor function are considered key players in the pathogenesis of upper gastrointestinal symptoms in functional dyspepsia and in gastroparesis. This review summarizes recent progress in our understanding of gastric sensory and motor function in health and in disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although assessment of gastric emptying rate is often used in the clinical work-up of patients with functional dyspepsia or gastroparesis, the correlation with symptoms is generally poor. Central processing, related to psychosocial dysfunction, is increasingly implicated in the pathogensis of gastric hypersensitivity. Meal challenge test and in fact even simple ingestion of a meal induce increased symptom occurrence in functional dyspepsia. Impaired motor function in critically ill patients is increasingly being studied and recognized as a prognostically relevant factor. Studies have reported on pharmacological approaches as well as electrical stimulation in the treatment of gastric sensorimotor dysfunction.

SUMMARY

Progress in our understanding of the normal and abnormal gastric sensory and motor function may lead to new or improved treatment modalities. Areas of recent advances are the role of the central nervous system in visceral hypersensitivity, motor abnormalities of the stomach in critically ill patients and the exploration of novel pharmacotherapeutic approaches.

Motility disorders in the ICU: recent therapeutic options and clinical practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Motility disturbances often occur in critically ill patients resulting in an increased rate of morbidity and mortality. Only limited options for treatment of gastrointestinal dysfunction have been introduced. Factors contributing to motility disorders in the ICU patient, and recent therapeutic approaches are reviewed in the following.

RECENT FINDINGS

Despite the growing use of early enteral nutrition in the ICU and improvements in patients' outcome, feed intolerance and motility disorders in critical illness remain unsolved. Evaluation of pathophysiological patterns such as antro-pyloric dysfunction has led to a better knowledge of gut function, whereas development of new prokinetic agents is scarce, and enthusiasm has been cut by the withdrawal of some propulsive agents from the market.

SUMMARY

The complexity of gastrointestinal motor function poses a challenge to the pharmacological modulation of gut motility. There has been progress in the understanding of pathophysiologic patterns, whereas therapeutic options are still rare. Metoclopramide and erythromycin are the best evaluated and still the most promising prokinetic agents. Only a few studies in critical illness are available, and the definite value of novel propulsive agents such as motilin agonists and mu-receptor antagonists is unclear due to small patient populations. The most reasonable approach of motility disorders in critical illness seems to be an individual assessment of all associated risk factors combined with early enteral nutrition and use of prokinetic agents.