Effects of early enteral nutrition in the treatment of patients with severe burns
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1009-2587.2018.01.008
- VernacularTitle: 严重烧伤患者早期肠内营养的治疗效果
- Author:
Yuwen WU
1
;
Jun LIU
;
Jun JIN
;
Lijun LIU
;
Yunfu WU
Author Information
1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, East Region of Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Suzhou Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing Medical University, Jiangsu 215001, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Burns;
Enteral nutrition;
Treatment outcome
- From:
Chinese Journal of Burns
2018;34(1):40-46
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the effects of early enteral nutrition (EEN) in the treatment of patients with severe burns.
Methods:Medical records of 52 patients with severe burns hospitalized in the three affiliations of authors from August to September in 2014 were retrospectively analyzed and divided into EEN group (n=28) and non-early enteral nutrition (NEEN) group (n=24) according to the initiation time of enteral nutrition. On the basis of routine treatment, enteral nutrition was given to patients in group EEN within post injury day (POD) 3, while enteral nutrition was given to patients in group NEEN after POD 3. The following items were compared between patients of the two groups, such as the ratio of enteral nutrition intake to total energy intake, the ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake, the ratio of total energy intake to energy target on POD 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 21, and 28, the levels of prealbumin, serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, total bilirubin, direct bilirubin, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation Ⅱ (APACHE Ⅱ) score on POD 1, 3, 7, 14, and 28, the first operation time, the number of operations, and the frequencies of abdominal distension, diarrhea, vomiting, aspiration, catheter blockage, and low blood sugar within POD 28. Data were processed with χ2test, ttest, Wilcoxon rank sum test, and Bonferroni correction.
Results:(1) The ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake of patients in group EEN on POD 1 was obviously lower than that in group NEEN (Z=2.078, P<0.05). The ratio of enteral nutrition intake to total energy intake and the ratio of total energy intake to energy target of patients in group EEN on POD 2 and 3 were obviously higher than those in group NEEN (Z=5.766, 6.404, t=4.907, 6.378, P<0.01). The ratio of total energy intake to energy target of patients in group EEN was obviously lower than that in group NEEN on POD 4, 5, 6, and 7 (t=4.635, 2.547, 3.751, 5.373, P<0.05 or P<0.01). On POD 2, 4, 5, 14, 21, and 28, the ratio of enteral nutrition intake to total energy intake of patients in group EEN was obviously higher than the ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake within the same group (Z=5.326, 2.046, 2.129, 4.118, 3.174, 3.963, P<0.05 or P<0.01). In group NEEN, the ratio of enteral nutrition to total energy intake of patients on POD 1, 2, and 3 was obviously lower than the ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake within the same group (Z=2.591, 2.591, 3.293, P<0.05 or P<0.01), while the ratio of enteral nutrition to total energy intake of patients on POD 14, 21, 28 was obviously higher than the ratio of parenteral nutrition intake to total energy intake within the same group (Z=2.529, 3.173, 3.133, P<0.05 or P<0.01). (2) The prealbumin levels of patients in the two groups were close on POD 1, 3, 7, and 14 (t=1.983, 0.093, 0.832, 1.475, P>0.05). On POD 28, the prealbumin level of patients in group EEN was obviously higher than that in group NEEN (t=3.163, P<0.05). The levels of serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, total bilirubin, and direct bilirubin of patients in the two groups at all time points post injury were close (Z=1.340, 0.547, 0.245, 0.387, 0.009, 1.170, 0.340, 1.491, 0.274, 1.953, 0.527, 0.789, 0.474, 1.156, 0.482, 0.268, 0.190, 0.116, 1.194, 0.431, P>0.05). (3) The APACHE Ⅱ scores of patients in group EEN were (22.5±3.1) and (15.6±3.8) points respectively on POD 1 and 3, which were close to (23.6±3.0) and (17.6±4.2) points of patients in group NEEN (t=1.352, 1.733, P>0.05). The APACHE Ⅱ scores of patients in group EEN on POD 7, 14, and 28 were (13.6±3.6), (13.8±4.1), and (15.5±4.1) points, respectively, which were obviously lower than (18.5±3.9), (19.5±4.2) and (20.8±3.8) points of patients in group NEEN (t=4.677, 4.843, 4.792, P<0.05). (4) Within POD 28, the time of the first operation, the number of operations, and the frequencies of abdominal distension, diarrhea, vomiting, aspiration, catheter blockage and hypoglycemia were similar between patients of the two groups (t=0.684, 0.782, Z=0.161, 1.751, 0.525, 0.764, 0.190, 0.199, P>0.05).
Conclusions:EEN in the treatment of patients with severe burns potentially increases the energy intake at early stage and improves APACHE Ⅱ score and prealbumin level on POD 28, without increasing frequencies of adverse reactions.
