Chrome Extension
WeChat Mini Program
Use on ChatGLM

Immediate Vs. Gradual Advancement to Goal of Enteral Nutrition after Elective Abdominal Surgery: A Multicenter Non-Inferiority Randomized Trial.

Li Zhang,Yuxiu Liu,Xuejin Gao,Da Zhou,Yupeng Zhang,Feng Tian,Tingting Gao,Yong Wang,Zhida Chen,Bo Lian, Hao Hu,Zhenyi Jia,Zhigang Xue,Dong Guo,Junde Zhou,Yingchao Gu,Fangyou Gong,Xiaoting Wu,Yun Tang,Mengbin Li, Gang Jin, Huanlong Qin, Jianchun Yu, Yanbing Zhou, Qiang Chi, Hua Yang, Kunhua Wang, Guoli Li, Ning Li, Arthur R. H. van Zanten,Jieshou Li,Xinying Wang

Clinical nutrition(2021)

Cited 5|Views19
No score
Abstract
Background & aims: The strategy of increasing the postoperative enteral nutrition dose to the target goal has not yet been clarified. This study aimed to determine whether an immediate goal-dose enteral nutrition (IGEN) strategy is non-inferior to a gradual goal-dose enteral nutrition (GGEN) strategy in reducing infections in patients undergoing abdominal surgery involving the organs of the digestive system. Methods: This randomized controlled trial enrolled postoperative patients with nutritional risk screening 2002 scores >= 3 from 11 Chinese hospitals. Energy targets were calculated as 25 kcal/kg and 30 kcal/kg of ideal body weight for women and men, respectively. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to IGEN or GGEN group after enteral tolerance was confirmed (30% of the target on day 2). The IGEN group immediately started receiving 100% of the caloric requirements on day 3, while the GGEN group received 40% progressing to 80% of target on day 7. The primary endpoint was the infection rate until discharge, based on the intention-to-treat population. Results: A total of 411 patients were enrolled and randomized to the IGEN and GGEN groups, and five patients did not receive the allocated intervention. A total of 406 patients were included in the primary analysis, with 199 and 207 in the IGEN and GGEN groups, respectively. Infection was observed in 17/199 (8.5%) in the IGEN group and 19/207 (9.2%) in the GGEN group, respectively (difference, -0.6%; [95% confidence interval (Cl), -6.2%-4.9%]; P = 0.009 for non-inferiority test). There were significantly more gastrointestinal intolerance events with IGEN than with GGEN (58/199 [29.1%] vs. 32/207 [15.5%], P < 0.001). All other secondary endpoints were non-significant. Conclusions: Among postoperative patients at nutritional risk, IGEN was non-inferior to GGEN in regards to infectious complications. IGEN was associated with more gastrointestinal intolerance events. It showed that IGEN cannot be considered to be clinically directive. (C) 2021 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.
More
Translated text
Key words
Enteral nutrition,Elective abdominal surgery,Dosing,Infections,Nutritional risk
AI Read Science
Must-Reading Tree
Example
Generate MRT to find the research sequence of this paper
Chat Paper
Summary is being generated by the instructions you defined