A systematic review of the safety and tolerability evaluation of enteral nutrition in a prone position with acute respiratory distress syndrome.
10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20221114-00982
- Author:
Youfang LIU
1
;
Xu HUANG
Author Information
1. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Center for Respiratory Diseases, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, National Center for Respiratory Medicine, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Beijing 100029, China. Corresponding author: Huang Xu, Email: huangxu1122@sina.com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/etiology*;
Enteral Nutrition;
Prone Position;
Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects*;
Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology*;
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic;
Observational Studies as Topic
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2023;35(9):968-974
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To systematically review safety and tolerance of enteral nutrition (EN) in a prone position, as well as the risks of increased gastric residual volume (GRV), vomiting, aspiration, and ventilator-associated pneumonia, and determine the ways to improve EN tolerance in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).
METHODS:Databases including PubMed, Embase and Wanfang Medical data of the English and Chinese literatures were retrieved up from January 1979 to January 2022 to collet the randomized controlled trial (RCT), non-RCT, and observational studies, concerning safety and tolerance of EN in a prone position with ARDS. All trials must have a minimum of two patient groups, one of which must be prone to ARDS and receive EN. Data searching extracting and quality evaluation were assessed by two reviewers independently. RevMan 5.4 software was used for analysis.
RESULTS:A total of 9 studies were included, including 2 RCTs, 2 non-RCTs, 4 prospective observational studies, and 1 retrospective observational study. The starting and increasing rate of EN were typically well tolerated in the prone position compared to the supine position in patients with ARDS, there was no significant increase in GRV (mL: 95 vs. 110), and the incidence of vomiting was not noticeably higher (0%-35% vs. 33%-57%). The incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia with EN was not significantly higher in the prone position than in the supine position in patients with ARDS (6%-35% vs. 15%-24%). Aspiration occurred at a similar rate in patients in the nasogastric tube and post-pyloric feeding groups with EN in patients with ARDS in the prone position (22% vs. 20%). EN tolerability with nasogastric and nasojejunal tubes was similar in prone positions, with no significant difference in EN intolerance incidences (15% vs. 22%). Head elevation (30 degree angle-45 degree angle) improved EN tolerance in the prone position in patients with ARDS, thereby increasing the early EN dose [odds ratio (OR) = 0.48, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) was 0.22-1.08, P = 0.08]. Additionally, prophylactic application of gastrointestinal motility drugs, such as erythromycin, at the start of EN in a prone position significantly improved patients' EN tolerance (OR = 1.14, 95%CI was 0.63-2.05, P = 0.67).
CONCLUSIONS:The use of gastric tube for EN in prone position and similar feeding speed to the supine position in patients with ARDS is safe and well tolerated. The initiation and dosing of EN should not be delayed in the prone position. EN tolerance may be increased by elevating the head of the bed during enteral feeding in a prone position, and gastrointestinal motility medications should be promptly administered with EN initiation in patients with ARDS.
