Diarrhoea in the enterally fed patient

Effects of fibre-supplemented enteral feeds on bowel function of non-critically ill tube-fed adults: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Diarrhoea is common in enterally fed patients and can impact their nutritional and overall outcomes. This meta-analysis evaluates the potential benefits of fibre-supplemented (FS) feeds on incidence of diarrhoea and stool frequency in non-critically ill tube-fed adults. Databases including PubMed, Embase and CINAHL with full text were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCT) with adults on exclusive tube feeding, published until August 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used for quality assessment. Studies with published results on incidence of diarrhoea and stool frequency were analysed using RevMan 5. Thirteen RCT with 847 non-critically ill patients between 20 and 90 years old without diarrhoea at the onset of enteral feeding were included. Study duration ranged from 3 to 35 d. Nine papers investigated the incidence of diarrhoea where intervention group was given FS and control was given non-fibre-supplemented (NFS) enteral feeds. Those receiving FS feeds were significantly less likely to experience diarrhoea as compared with those using NFS feeds (OR 0·44; 95 % CI 0·20, 0·95; P = 0·04; I2 = 71 %). Combined analysis showed no differences in stool frequency in those receiving NFS feeds (SMD 0·32; 95 % CI -0·53, 1·16; P = 0·47; I2 = 90 %). Results should be interpreted with caution due to considerable heterogeneity between study population, assessment tool for diarrhoea, potential conflict of interest and short duration of studies. This meta-analysis shows that FS feeds can reduce the incidence of diarrhoea in non-critically ill adults; however, the effects of stool frequency remain debatable.

A comparative, randomised MRI study of the physiological and appetitive responses to gelling (alginate) and non-gelling nasogastric tube feeds in healthy men

Inclusion in nasogastric tube feeds (NGTF) of acid-sensitive, seaweed-derived alginate, expected to form a reversible gel in the stomach, may create a more normal intragastric state and modified gastrointestinal responses. This may ameliorate NGTF-associated risk of diarrhoea, upper gastrointestinal symptoms and appetite suppression. In a randomised, crossover, comparison study, undertaken in twelve healthy males, an alginate-containing feed (F + ALG) or one that was alginate-free (F-ALG) (300 ml) was given over 1 h with a 7-14-d washout period between treatments. Baseline and for 4-h post-feed initiation, MRI measurements were made to establish small bowel water content (SBWC), gastric contents volume (GCV) and appearance, and superior mesenteric artery blood flux. Blood glucose and gut peptides were measured. Subjective appetite and upper gastrointestinal symptoms scores were obtained. Ad libitum pasta consumption 3-h post-feeding was measured. F + ALG exhibited a gastric appearance consistent with gelling surrounded by a freely mobile water halo. Significant main effects of feed were seen for SBWC (P = 0·03) and peptide YY (PYY) (P = 0·004) which were attributed to generally higher values for SBWC with F + ALG (max difference between adjusted means 72 ml at 210 min) and generally lower values for PYY with F + ALG. GCV showed a faster reduction with F + ALG, less between-participant variation and a feed-by-time interaction (P = 0·04). Feed-by-time interactions were also seen with glucagon-like-peptide 1 (GLP-1) (P = 0·02) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) (P = 0·002), both showing a blunted response with F + ALG. Apparent intragastric gelling with F + ALG and subsequent differences in gastrointestinal and endocrine responses have been demonstrated between an alginate-containing and alginate-free feed.

A high-protein peptide-based enteral formula improves diarrhea in tube-fed patients: A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Diarrhea is a common problem in tube-fed patients. The relevant guidelines suggest using a peptide-based enteral formula in patients with diarrhea; however, sufficient evidence to support this recommendation is currently lacking.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a high-protein peptide-based formula on gastrointestinal intolerance, mainly focusing on diarrhea symptoms in patients who were intolerant to polymeric formula feeding.

METHODS

This prospective, single-arm, open-label, multicenter study was conducted from March 2021 to March 2022 at two tertiary-care hospitals. Patients who presented with diarrhea during tube feeding with polymeric formula were assigned to receive a high-protein peptide-based formula for ≤7 days. Stool weight and frequency were monitored at baseline, on day 3, and on day 7 (or end of the study) as the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight tube-fed patients with diarrhea were recruited. After switching their feeding formula from polymeric to peptide based, significant improvements in stool frequency and stool weight were observed on day 3 and day 7 compared with the baseline (median [IQR] stool frequency: 5 (2), 2.5 (3.5), and 3 (3) times/day, respectively, p <0.001; median stool weight: 500 (370), 170 (285), and 275 (385) gram/day, respectively, p = 0.015). Stool consistency was assessed using the Bristol Stool Score and showed significant improvement with time. No serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

A high-protein peptide-based enteral formula was effective in reducing stool weight and frequency in patients who experienced diarrhea during tube feeding with a polymeric formula.Trial registration: TCTR20210302006.

Do patients fed enterally post-gastrointestinal surgery experience more complications when fed a fiber-enriched feed compared with a standard feed? A systematic review

The role of enteral feeding with fiber-enriched feeds in minimizing infections, shortening length of hospital stay (LOHS), and preventing or treating feeding complications has been widely researched. However, there is limited evidence to evaluate the role of fiber-enriched enteral feeding in gastrointestinal surgery patients postoperatively. This systematic review aims to identify the role of fiber-enriched enteral feeds on postoperative feeding complications of diarrhea, nausea and vomiting, abdominal distension, flatulence, cramps, LOHS, and infection rates after gastrointestinal surgery. A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Manual reference lists were searched on identified studies and the SCOPUS database. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted on any gastrointestinal surgery type that included enteral nutrition with high-fiber enteral feeds and/or fiber supplements were included. All studies included were screened for risk of bias with Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool, and data were extracted with Cochrane Collaboration's data extraction tool. In total, 3 RCTs out of 231 screened citations including fiber-enriched feeds and probiotics were included in this review. No significant effect on LOHS or postoperative infections was found. No safety risks were identified. Limited, low-quality evidence suggests fiber-enriched feeds may minimize diarrhea incidence. The effects of fiber-enriched feeds postoperatively in gastrointestinal surgery remain under-researched. Studies evaluating fiber and probiotics were low quality and at high risk of bias because of the misreporting of outcomes and the lack of detailed outlines of probiotic strains utilized. However, fiber-enriched enteral feeding appears safe, may yield benefits, and is recommended in stable gastrointestinal surgical patients.

Systematic review of clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about nutrition in intensive care

Nutrition is a key component of care for critically ill patients; yet nutrition delivery is below international recommendations. In order to improve nutrition delivery to critically ill patients, an understanding of the barriers that prevent guideline adherence is required. It is known that clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of the role of nutrition may act as a potential barrier to nutrition delivery, but whether this remains true in critical care is unknown. The aim of this systematic scoping review was to summarize the literature exploring the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of clinicians around nutrition support in critically ill patients. A search of four online databases (MEDLINE via Ovid, Emcare via Ovid, PsycINFO, and CINAHL via EBSCOhost) was conducted on August 14, 2020, to identify literature that reported on clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of nutrition in adult intensive care patients. Data were extracted on study and participant characteristics, methodology, and key study outcomes related to nutrition. Eighteen articles met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Key findings included the following: nutrition was seen as a priority that ranked below life-saving interventions; differences in perceived clinician responsibilities exist; common barriers to nutrition delivery included inadequate resourcing, lack of nutrition protocols, and gastrointestinal intolerance; and identified facilitators included nutrition education and the presence of a supportive multidisciplinary team. The implementation of nutrition protocols, enhanced clinical nutrition education, and further clarification of roles and responsibilities pertaining to nutrition may assist in improving nutrition delivery in critical care.

Tacrolimus Dose-Conversion Ratios Based on Switching of Formulations for Patients with Solid Organ Transplants

Background

Tacrolimus may be administered during hospitalization as an IV formulation or oral suspension. However, literature suggesting appropriate ratios for conversion from these formulations to capsules is limited.

Objective

To evaluate conversion ratios after a switch in formulation of tacrolimus for solid-organ transplant recipients.

Methods

This single-centre observational longitudinal study involved hospitalized patients who underwent a switch in formulation of tacrolimus according to 1 of 3 possible scenarios: IV to oral suspension, IV to capsule, or oral suspension to capsule. Data were collected from the earliest accessible electronic file (January 2009) to January 1, 2019. Conversion ratios were calculated for each of the 3 groups using data for blood concentrations and doses before and after the switch. The calculated ratios were then compared with recommended conversion ratios: 1:5 (i.e., 1 mg of IV tacrolimus is converted to 5 mg of oral tacrolimus, expressed as "5") for either of the switches involving an IV formulation and 1:1 (i.e., same amount, expressed as "1") for the switch from oral formulation to capsules.

Results

For the group who underwent switching from the IV formulation to oral suspension, the mean calculated conversion ratio was 3.04, which was significantly different from the recommended ratio of 5. For the group who underwent switching from the IV formulation to capsules, the calculated conversion ratio was 5.18, which was not significantly different from the recommended ratio of 5. For the group who underwent switching from oral suspension to capsules, the calculated conversion ratio was 1.17, which was not significantly different from the recommended ratio of 1.

Conclusion

In this small retrospective study of tacrolimus therapy, the calculated conversion ratio was significantly different from the recommended ratio for patients who were switched from IV administration to oral suspension, but not for those switched from IV administration or oral suspension to capsules. Therapeutic drug monitoring therefore appears indispensable, regardless of conversion ratios.

Effects of curd on diarrhea treatment in patients with head trauma receiving enteral feeding in intensive care units

BACKGROUND: Diarrhea in patients on enteral feeding is a common complication with serious clinical outcomes. In Eastern and Southern Mediterranean regions, using curd as a food for the treatment of diarrhea is a common practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether curd could reduce the duration or severity of diarrhea in critically ill tube-fed patients with head trauma. METHODS: A total of 42 patients on enteral feeding who had diarrhea after starting enteral feeding, admitted to the intensive care unit, were randomly assigned to either to receiving curd and standard enteral formula or standard enteral formula only groups. The intervention period for each patient was three days. The primary outcome was the duration of diarrhea, while the secondary outcomes were the frequency and weight of stool per day in each patient. RESULTS: This study showed a significantly higher stool weight in patients receiving enteral curd (588.76±266.88 vs 390.60±171.82 gr/day). There was no significant difference between the groups in duration of diarrhea (9 v 8 days) and episodes of diarrhea per day (2.20±1.00 vs 2.00±0.70) in intervention and control groups. incidence of liquid or loose stools on days 1–4 of the intervention (P1 = 0.43, P2 = 0.16, P3 = 0.45, P4 = 0.62). Feeding with curd did not change the APACHE score in intervention and control groups. This study showed no significant difference in 28 days of mortality in intervention and control groups. CONCLUSION: The findings showed that supplementary enteral feeding with curd did not improve diarrhea, the severity of the disease, or 28 days mortality in critically ill patients with diarrhea receiving enteral nutrition.

Evaluating appropriateness and diagnostic stewardship opportunities of multiplex polymerase chain reaction gastrointestinal testing within a hospital system

Objective:

This single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study evaluates the appropriateness of the BioFire® FilmArray® Gastrointestinal (GI) multiplex PCR panel testing at a community-teaching hospital.

Methods:

All adult, hospitalized patients at Prisma Health Richland Hospital with a documented GI multiplex PCR panel from 1 April 2015 through 28 February 2018 were included in the analysis. Inappropriate use of the GI panel was defined as a test obtained without documented diarrhea, greater than 2 days of hospitalization, redundant use with other diagnostic tests (e.g. Clostridioides difficile PCR), or laxative use in the preceding 48 h. Antibiotic use and host variables were compared between groups with positive and negative results.

Results:

During the study period, 442 GI panels were obtained, among which 268 (61%) were deemed inappropriate. Primary reasons for inappropriate testing were lack of documented diarrhea (n = 92), greater than 2 days of hospitalization (n = 116), having a duplicate C. difficile PCR test ordered (n = 118), or laxative use in the 48 h before testing (n = 36). A total of 141 (32%) GI panels were positive. The most frequently identified pathogens were C. difficile (51.1%, n = 72), Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (17.7%, n = 25), and Norovirus GI/GII (12.1%, n = 17). Patients with negative GI panel results were initiated on antibiotics significantly less frequently than those with positive GI panels (62.5% versus 80.2%, p < 0.00001).

Conclusion:

Stewardship opportunities exist to optimize the diagnostic application of the GI multiplex PCR panel.