An Enteral Nutrition Protocol to Improve Efficiency in Achieving Nutritional Goals

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.

Nutrition Support Protocols: Enhancing Delivery of Enteral Nutrition

In critical care, malnutrition has a significant, negative impact on a patient's ability to respond to medical treatment. Enteral nutrition is known to counteract the metabolic changes associated with critical illness that increase the risk for serious complications and poor clinical outcomes. Inadequate delivery of nutrition support and underfeeding persist in intensive care units despite the availability of guidelines and current research for best practice. Recent studies have shown that nutrition support protocols are effective in promoting nutritional goals in a wide variety of intensive care patients. It is essential to find approaches that enhance early delivery of enteral nutrition that meets requirements and supports improved outcomes. Nurses are in a unique position to take an active role in promoting the best nutritional outcomes for their patients by using and evaluating nutrition support protocols.

ASPEN Safe Practices for Enteral Nutrition Therapy [Formula: see text]

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a valuable clinical intervention for patients of all ages in a variety of care settings. Along with its many outcome benefits come the potential for adverse effects. These safety issues are the result of clinical complications and of process-related errors. The latter can occur at any step from patient assessment, prescribing, and order review, to product selection, labeling, and administration. To maximize the benefits of EN while minimizing adverse events requires that a systematic approach of care be in place. This includes open communication, standardization, and incorporation of best practices into the EN process. This document provides recommendations based on the available evidence and expert consensus for safe practices, across each step of the process, for all those involved in caring for patients receiving EN.