Review

Authors: Jean-Charles Preiser, Yaseen M Arabi, Mette M Berger...

The preferential use of the oral/enteral route in critically ill patients over gut rest is uniformly recommended and applied. This article provides practical guidance on enteral nutrition in compliance with recent American and European guidelines. Low-dose enteral nutrition can be safely started within 48 h after admission, even during treatment with small or moderate doses of vasopressor agents. A percutaneous access should be used when enteral nutrition is anticipated for ≥ 4 weeks. Energy delivery should not be calculated to match energy expenditure before day 4-7, and the use of energy-dense formulas can be restricted to cases of inability to tolerate full-volume isocaloric enteral nutrition or to patients who require fluid restriction. Low-dose protein (max 0.8 g/kg/day) can be provided during the early phase of critical illness, while a protein target of > 1.2 g/kg/day could be considered during the rehabilitation phase. The occurrence of refeeding syndrome should be assessed by daily measurement of plasma phosphate, and a phosphate drop of 30% should be managed by reduction of enteral feeding rate and high-dose thiamine. Vomiting and increased gastric residual volume may indicate gastric intolerance, while sudden abdominal pain, distension, gastrointestinal paralysis, or rising abdominal pressure may indicate lower gastrointestinal intolerance.

Topics: Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Food, Formulated; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Residual Volume

PubMed: 34906215
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-021-03847-4

Review

Authors: C P Criée, S Sorichter, H J Smith...

Body plethysmography allows to assess functional residual capacity (FRC(pleth)) and specific airway resistance (sRaw) as primary measures. In combination with deep expirations and inspirations, total lung capacity (TLC) and residual volume (RV) can be determined. Airway resistance (Raw) is calculated as the ratio of sRaw to FRC(pleth). Raw is a measure of airway obstruction and indicates the alveolar pressure needed to establish a flow rate of 1 L s(-1). In contrast, sRaw can be interpreted as the work to be performed by volume displacement to establish this flow rate. These measures represent different functional aspects and should both be considered. The measurement relies on the fact that generation of airflow needs generation of pressure. Pressure generation means that a mass of air is compressed or decompressed relative to its equilibrium volume. This difference is called "shift volume". As the body box is sealed and has rigid walls, its free volume experiences the same, mirror image-like shift volume as the lung. This shift volume can be measured via the variation of box pressure. The relationship between shift volume and alveolar pressure is assessed in a shutter maneuver, by identifying mouth and alveolar pressure under zero-flow conditions. These variables are combined to obtain FRC(pleth), sRaw and Raw. This presentation aims at providing the reader with a thorough and precise but non-technical understanding of the working principle of body plethysmography. It also aims at showing that this method yields significant additional information compared to spirometry and even bears a potential for further development.

Topics: Airway Obstruction; Airway Resistance; Functional Residual Capacity; Humans; Plethysmography, Whole Body; Spirometry; Total Lung Capacity

PubMed: 21356587
DOI: 10.1016/j.rmed.2011.02.006

Review

Authors: Hideto Yasuda, Natsuki Kondo, Ryohei Yamamoto...

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.

Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Residual Volume; Stomach

PubMed: 34596901
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013335.pub2

Comparative Study

Authors: D A Mahler, C K Wells

To evaluate available clinical methods (self ratings and questionnaire) for rating dyspnea, we (1) compared scores from the recently developed baseline dyspnea index (BDI) with the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale and the oxygen-cost diagram (OCD) in 153 patients with various respiratory diseases who sought medical care for shortness of breath; and (2) evaluated the relationships between dyspnea scores and standard measures of physiologic lung function in the same patients. The dyspnea scores were all significantly correlated (r = 0.48 to 0.70; p less than 0.001). Agreement between two observers or with repeated use was satisfactory with all three clinical rating methods. The BDI showed the highest correlations with physiologic measurements. Dyspnea scores were most highly related to spirometric values (r = 0.78; p less than 0.001) for patients with asthma, maximal respiratory pressures (r = 0.34 and 0.35; p less than 0.001) for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and PImax (r = 0.51; p = 0.01) and FVC (r = 0.44; p = 0.03) for those with interstitial lung disease. These results show that: (1) the BDI, MRC scale, and OCD provide significantly related measures of dyspnea; (2) the clinical ratings of dyspnea correlate significantly with physiologic parameters of lung function; and (3) breathlessness may be related to the pathophysiology of the specific respiratory disease. The clinical rating of dyspnea may provide quantitative information complementary to measurements of lung function.

Topics: Aged; Dyspnea; Evaluation Studies as Topic; Female; Forced Expiratory Volume; Humans; Male; Methods; Middle Aged; Residual Volume; Surveys and Questionnaires; Total Lung Capacity; Vital Capacity

PubMed: 3342669
DOI: 10.1378/chest.93.3.580

Meta-Analysis Review

Authors: Kim Lewis, Zuhoor Alqahtani, Lauralyn Mcintyre...

BACKGROUND

Intolerance to enteral nutrition is common in critically ill adults, and may result in significant morbidity including ileus, abdominal distension, vomiting and potential aspiration events. Prokinetic agents are prescribed to improve gastric emptying. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in critically ill patients is not well-defined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from inception up to January 2016. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of critically ill adults assigned to receive a prokinetic agent or placebo, and that reported relevant clinical outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened potentially eligible articles, selected eligible studies, and abstracted pertinent data. We calculated pooled relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference for continuous outcomes, with the corresponding 95 % confidence interval (CI). We assessed risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, and the quality of evidence using grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs (enrolling 1341 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Prokinetic agents significantly reduced feeding intolerance (RR 0.73, 95 % CI 0.55, 0.97; P = 0.03; moderate certainty), which translated to 17.3 % (95 % CI 5, 26.8 %) absolute reduction in feeding intolerance. Prokinetics also reduced the risk of developing high gastric residual volumes (RR 0.69; 95 % CI 0.52, 0.91; P = 0.009; moderate quality) and increased the success of post-pyloric feeding tube placement (RR 1.60, 95 % CI 1.17, 2.21; P = 0.004; moderate quality). There was no significant improvement in the risk of vomiting, diarrhea, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay or mortality. Prokinetic agents also did not significantly increase the rate of diarrhea.

CONCLUSION

There is moderate-quality evidence that prokinetic agents reduce feeding intolerance in critically ill patients compared to placebo or no intervention. However, the impact on other clinical outcomes such as pneumonia, mortality, and ICU length of stay is unclear.

Topics: Chi-Square Distribution; Critical Illness; Diarrhea; Domperidone; Dopamine Antagonists; Enteral Nutrition; Erythromycin; Gastric Emptying; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Metoclopramide; Residual Volume; Vomiting

PubMed: 27527069
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1441-z

Authors: Lydianne L M Agra, Alexander Sverstad, Thiago A Chagas...

PURPOSE

To compare accuracy, precision, and residual volume of commonly used syringes for intravitreal injections (IVIs) and to assess the intraocular pressure (IOP) rise by variations in volumes delivered.

DESIGN

Experimental laboratory study.

SUBJECTS

No subjects were involved in this study.

METHODS

We tested 8 syringe models with 2 different needle setups, with 2 different solutions (distilled water or glycerin) and target volumes (50 and 70 μL). To obtain the delivered and residual volumes, we weighed the syringe-needle setups with scale before liquid withdrawal, with liquid, and after liquid release. We also created an experimental eye model to determine the transient rise in IOP following stepwise 10-μL increases in injection volumes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Delivered and residual volumes, IOP rise.

RESULTS

We tested a total of 600 syringe-needle setups. Becton Dickinson (BD) Ultra-Fine (0.34 ± 0.28 μL), Zero Residual (1.53 ± 1.15 μL), and Zero Residual Silicone Oil-free (1.40 ± 1.16 μL) syringes showed the lowest residual volume (P < 0.001) in comparison with the others (range: 24.86 ± 1.78 μL for Injekt-F to 51.97 ± 3.37 μL for Omnifix-F). The most accurate setups were (percentage deviation from target volume): Zero Residual Silicone Oil-free (+ 0.70%), Zero Residual 0.3 ml (+ 4.49%), BD Ultra-Fine (+ 7.83%), Injekt-F (9.42%), Norm-Ject (+ 15.88%), Omnifix-F (+ 16.96%), BD Plastipak Brazil (+17.96%), and BD Plastipak Spain syringes (+ 19.41%). There was a statistically significant difference between the Zero Residual Silicone Oil-free syringe and all other syringes (P < 0.0001), except for the Zero Residual 0.3-ml syringe (P = 0.029). The coefficient of variation was low for all syringes. The modeled IOP rise ranged from 32.3 (standard deviation [SD], 1.4) mmHg for 20-μL injection volume to 76.5 (SD, 1.0) mmHg for 80-μL injection volume. For the standard 50-μL injection volume, the peak pressure was 50.7 (SD, 0.1) mmHg, and the pressure rise duration was 28 (SD, 2) minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

There were significant differences in accuracy and residual volume between syringes, whereas they showed a high precision. Volume excess results in a considerable increase in IOP rise after injection. These findings may provide a relevant overview to clinicians and to both device and drug manufacturers regarding pharmacoeconomic, safety, and efficacy issues.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Topics: Humans; Intravitreal Injections; Syringes; Residual Volume; Intraocular Pressure; Eye Diseases; Silicone Oils

PubMed: 37302655
DOI: 10.1016/j.oret.2023.06.003