Premium
Volume‐Based Feeding in the Critically Ill Patient
Author(s) -
McClave Stephen A.,
Saad Mohamed A.,
Esterle Mark,
Anderson Mary,
Jotautas Alice E.,
Franklin Glen A.,
Heyland Daren K.,
Hurt Ryan T.
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.935
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 1941-2444
pISSN - 0148-6071
DOI - 10.1177/0148607114540004
Subject(s) - calorie , medicine , parenteral nutrition , critically ill , caloric theory , caloric intake , randomization , randomized controlled trial , mechanical ventilation , surgery , anesthesia , body weight , intensive care medicine
Critically ill patients placed on enteral nutrition (EN) are usually underfed. A volume‐based feeding (VBF) protocol designed to adjust the infusion rate to make up for interruptions in delivery should provide a greater volume of EN than the more common fixed hourly rate‐based feeding (RBF) method. Methods: This single‐center, randomized (3:1; VBF/RBF) prospective study evaluated critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation expected to receive EN for ≥3 days. Once goal rate was achieved, the randomized feeding strategy was implemented. In the VBF group, physicians used a total goal volume of feeds to determine an hourly rate. For the RBF group, physicians determined a constant hourly rate of infusion to meet goal feeds. Results: Sixty‐three patients were enrolled in the study with a mean age of 52.6 years (60% male). Six patients were excluded after randomization because of early extubation. The VBF group (n = 37) received 92.9% of goal caloric requirements with a mean caloric deficit of −776.0 kcal compared with the RBF group (n = 20), which received 80.9% of goal calories ( P = .01) and a caloric deficit of −1933.8 kcal ( P = .01). Uninterrupted EN was delivered for 51.7% of all EN days in VFB patients compared with 54.5% in RBF patients. On days when feeding was interrupted, VFB patients overall received a mean 77.6% of goal calories (while RBF patients received 61.5% of goal calories, P = .001). No vomiting, regurgitation, or feeding intolerance occurred due to VBF. Conclusions: A VBF strategy is safe and improves delivery to better meet caloric requirements than the standard more commonly used rate‐based strategy.