Proximal gastric motility in critically ill patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Occult upper gastrointestinal mucosal abnormalities in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

The objectives of this study were to estimate the frequency of occult upper gastrointestinal abnormalities, presence of gastric acid as a contributing factor, and associations with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Data were extracted for study participants at a single centre who had an endoscopy performed purely for research purposes and in whom treating physicians were not suspecting gastrointestinal bleeding. Endoscopic data were independently adjudicated by two gastroenterologists who rated the likelihood that observed pathological abnormalities were related to gastric acid secretion using a 3-point ordinal scale (unlikely, possible or probable).

RESULTS

Endoscopy reports were extracted for 74 patients [age 52 (37, 65) years] undergoing endoscopy on day 5 [3, 9] of ICU admission. Abnormalities were found in 25 (34%) subjects: gastritis/erosions in 10 (14%), nasogastric tube trauma in 8 (11%), oesophagitis in 4 (5%) and non-bleeding duodenal ulceration in 3 (4%). The contribution of acid secretion to observed pathology was rated 'probable' in six subjects (rater #1) and five subjects (rater #2). Prior to endoscopy, 39 (53%) patients were receiving acid-suppressive therapy. The use of acid-suppressive therapy was not associated with the presence of an endoscopic abnormality (present 15/25 (60%) vs. absent 24/49 (49%); P = 0.46). Haemoglobin concentrations, packed red cells transfused and mortality were not associated with mucosal abnormalities (P = 0.83, P > 0.9 and P > 0.9 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Occult mucosal abnormalities were observed in one-third of subjects. The presence of mucosal abnormalities appeared to be independent of prior acid-suppressive therapy and was not associated with reduced haemoglobin concentrations, increased transfusion requirements, or mortality.

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.

Gastrointestinal motility problems in critical care: a clinical perspective

Advances in surgery, anesthesia and intensive care have led to a dramatic increase in the number of patients who spend time in our intensive care units (ICU). Gastrointestinal (GI) motility disorders are common complications in the intensive care setting and are predictors of increased mortality and length of the stay in the ICU. Several risk factors for developing GI motility problems in the ICU setting have been identified and include sepsis, being on mechanical ventilation and the use of vasopressors, opioids or anticholinergic medications. Our focus is on the most common clinical manifestations of GI motor dysfunction in the ICU patient: gastroesophageal reflux, gastroparesis, ileus and acute pseudo-obstruction of the colon.

The effects of sedation on gastric emptying and intra-gastric meal distribution in critical illness

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of sedation with morphine and midazolam (M&M) versus propofol on gastric emptying in critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

SETTING

Mixed medical and surgical intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

Thirty-six unselected, mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Gastric scintigraphic data were analysed retrospectively according to whether patients were receiving M&M (n=20; 14M, 6F) or propofol (n=16; 7M, 9F). Measurements were performed over 4 h after administration of 100 ml of Ensure, labelled with 20 MBq Tc99m.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Gastric half-emptying time (t1/2) and total and regional (proximal and distal stomach) meal retention (%) were assessed. The median t1/2 of patients receiving M&M (153 (IQR: 72-434) min) was significantly longer than that of patients receiving propofol (58 (34-166) min, p=0.02). Total gastric retention was greater in patients receiving M&M compared to those receiving propofol (p<0.01). Proximal (p=0.02) but not distal (p=0.80) gastric retention was greater in patients who received M&M. Patients who received M&M were more likely to have >or=5% meal retention at 240 min than those treated with propofol (95% (19/20) vs. 56% (9/16); p=0.01). Changes in blood glucose concentrations during the study were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In critical illness, patients receiving M&M for sedation are more likely to have slow gastric emptying, and proximal meal retention than those receiving propofol. The apparent beneficial effects of propofol-based sedation need confirmation by a prospective randomised controlled study.

Mechanisms underlying feed intolerance in the critically ill: Implications for treatment

Malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients. Although nutritional support is yet to be proven to improve mortality in non-malnourished critically ill patients, early enteral feeding is considered best practice. However, enteral feeding is often limited by delayed gastric emptying. The best method to clinically identify delayed gastric emptying and feed intolerance is unclear. Gastric residual volume (GRV) measured at the bedside is widely used as a surrogate marker for gastric emptying, but the value of GRV measurement has recently been disputed. While the mechanisms underlying delayed gastric emptying require further investigation, recent research has given a better appreciation of the pathophysiology. A number of pharmacological strategies are available to improve the success of feeding. Recent data suggest a combination of intravenous metoclopramide and erythromycin to be the most successful treatment, but novel drug therapies should be explored. Simpler methods to access the duodenum and more distal small bowel for feed delivery are also under investigation. This review summarises current understanding of the factors responsible for, and mechanisms underlying feed intolerance in critical illness, together with the evidence for current practices. Areas requiring further research are also highlighted.

Gastric feed intolerance is not increased in critically ill patients with type II diabetes mellitus

OBJECTIVE

To examine the occurrence of feed intolerance in critically ill patients with previously diagnosed type II diabetes mellitus (DM) who received prolonged gastric feeding.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective study in a level 3 mixed ICU.

PATIENTS

All mechanically ventilated, enterally fed patients (n = 649), with (n = 118) and without type II DM (n = 531) admitted between January 2003 and July 2005.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients with at least 72 h of gastric feeding were identified by review of case notes and ICU charts. The proportion that developed feed intolerance was determined. All patient received insulin therapy.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients requiring gastric feeding for at least 72 h was similar between patients with and without DM (42%, 50/118, vs. 42%, 222/531). Data from patients with DM were also compared with a group of 50 patients matched for age, sex and APACHE II score, selected from the total non-diabetic group. The occurrence of feed intolerance (DM 52% vs. matched non-DM 50% vs. unselected non-diabetic 58%) and the time taken to develop feed intolerance (DM 62.6 +/- 43.8 h vs. matched non-DM 45.3 +/- 54.6 vs. unselected non-diabetic 50.6 +/- 59.5) were similar amongst the three groups. Feed intolerance was associated with a greater use of morphine/midazolam and vasopressor support, a lower feeding rate and a longer ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients who require prolonged enteral nutrition, a prior history of DM type II does not appear to be a further risk factor for feed intolerance.

The impact of admission diagnosis on gastric emptying in critically ill patients

Introduction

Disturbed gastric emptying (GE) occurs commonly in critically ill patients. Admission diagnoses are believed to influence the incidence of delayed GE and subsequent feed intolerance. Although patients with burns and head injury are considered to be at greater risk, the true incidence has not been determined by examination of patient groups of sufficient number. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of admission diagnosis on GE in critically ill patients.

Methods

A retrospective review of patient demographics, diagnosis, intensive care unit (ICU) admission details, GE, and enteral feeding was performed on an unselected cohort of 132 mechanically ventilated patients (94 males, 38 females; age 54 ± 1.2 years; admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II] score of 22 ± 1) who had undergone GE assessment by ¹³C-octanoic acid breath test. Delayed GE was defined as GE coefficient (GEC) of less than 3.20 and/or gastric half-emptying time (t50) of more than 140 minutes.

Results

Overall, 60% of the patients had delayed GE and a mean GEC of 2.9 ± 0.1 and t50 of 163 ± 7 minutes. On univariate analysis, GE correlated significantly with older age, higher admission APACHE II scores, longer length of stay in ICU prior to GE measurement, higher respiratory rate, higher FiO₂ (fraction of inspired oxygen), and higher serum creatinine. After these factors were controlled for, there was a modest relationship between admission diagnosis and GE (r = 0.48; P = 0.02). The highest occurrence of delayed GE was observed in patients with head injuries, burns, multi-system trauma, and sepsis. Delayed GE was least common in patients with myocardial injury and non-gastrointestinal post-operative respiratory failure. Patients with delayed GE received fewer feeds and stayed longer in ICU and hospital compared to those with normal GE.

Conclusion

Admission diagnosis has a modest impact on GE in critically ill patients, even after controlling for factors such as age, illness severity, and medication, which are known to influence this function.