Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Enteral Nutrition
Nutrition delivered via the gut Includes oral feedings and tube feedings
Nutritional support via tube placement through the nose, esophagus, stomach, or intestines (duodenum or jejunum)
Must have functioning GI tract
Oral Supplements
Parenteral Gastrointestinal incompetency Hypermetabolic state with poor enteral tolerance or accessibility
Modified and adapted from Gorman RC, Morris JB: Minimally invasive access to the gastrointestinal tract. In Rombeau JL, Rolandelli RH, editors: Clinical nutrition: enteral and tube feeding, p 174, Philadelphia, 1997, WB Saunders; and Ali A et al: Nutritional support services, Nutritional Support Algorithms, 8(7):13, July 1998.
Malnourished patient expected to be unable to eat >5-7 days Normally nourished patient expected to be unable to eat >7-9 days Adaptive phase of short bowel syndrome Increased needs that cannot be met through oral intake (burns, trauma) Inadequate oral intake resulting in deterioration of nutritional status or delayed recovery from illness
ASPEN. The science and practice of nutrition support. A case-Based Core curriculum. 2001; 143
Contraindications for EN
Severe acute pancreatitis High output proximal fistula Inability to gain access Intractable vomiting or diarrhea Aggressive therapy not warranted
ASPEN. The science and practice of nutrition support. A case-based core curriculum. 2001; 143
Contraindications for EN
Inadequate resuscitation or hypotension; hemodynamic instability Ileus Intestinal obstruction Severe G.I. Bleed Expected need less than 5-7 days if malnourished or 7-9 days if normally nourished
Advantages - Enteral vs PN
ASPEN. The science and practice of nutrition support. A case-based core curriculum. 2001; 147
AdvantagesEnteral Nutrition
Intake easily/accurately monitored Provides nutrition when oral is not possible or adequate Supplies readily available Reduces risks associated with disease state
DisadvantagesEnteral Nutrition
GI, metabolic, and mechanical complicationstube migration; increased risk of bacterial contamination; tube obstruction; pneumothorax Costs more than oral diets (not necessarily) Less palatable/normal: patient/family resistance Labor-intensive assessment, administration, tube patency and site care, monitoring
Enteral Formulas
Liquid diets intended for oral use or for tube feeding Ready-to-use or powdered form Designed to meet variety of medical and nutrition needs Can be used alone or given with foods
Formula Selection
The suitability of a feeding formula should be evaluated based on Functional status of GI tract
Macronutrient ratios
Digestion and absorption capability of patient Specific metabolic needs Contribution of the feeding to fluid and electrolyte needs or restriction Cost effectiveness
Enteral Formulas
Determine best choice by medical and nutrition assessment Meet specific nutrition needs
Enteral Formulas
Complete formulas:
Enteral formulas designed to supply all needed nutrients when given in sufficient volume May also be used in smaller quantities to supplement regular diets
Polymeric Monomeric
Fiber-containing
Disease-specific
Rehydration
Modular
Whole protein nitrogen source For use in patients with normal or near normal GI function
Protein isolate formulas
Protein that has been separated from a food (casein from milk, albumin from egg)
Blenderized formulas
May contain pureed meat, vegetables, fruits, milk, starches with v/m added Made at home or purchased commercially
Use in patients with compromised digestive and/or absorptive capacity More expensive than standard formulas Tend to be more hyperosmolar because of small particle size
Fiber-containing: containing a source of fiber; reportedly beneficial for prevention/treatment of altered bowel function in enterally fed patients Soy polysaccharide is the most common fiber additive in enteral feedings; effectiveness in treating diarrhea in tubefed patients unproven
ASPEN. The science and practice of nutrition support. A casebased core curriculum. 2001; 148
Soluble fiber (guar gum, oat fiber, pectin) may exert trophic effect on colonic mucosa and be useful in normalizing bowel function
Most enteral feedings in amounts typically used contain less than recommended fiber intake for adults (20-35 g) Patients with impaired gastric emptying should not be fed fiber-containing formula into the stomach
ASPEN. The science and practice of nutrition support. A case-based core curriculum. 2001; 148
May be used in fluid-restricted or volume-sensitive patients Useful for nocturnal feedings where nutrition must be delivered over brief time span
Designed for patients with specific disease states. Available for patients with respiratory disease, ARDS, diabetes, renal failure, hepatic failure, and immune compromise. Well-designed clinical trials may or may not be available (mostly not) Many of the trials have been done with formula cocktails, making it difficult to identify the operative variable
Pharmaceutical effects are claimed for many specialty enteral formulas (reduced LOS, reduced infections, reduced time on the ventilator) Mfrs are charging pharmaceutical prices (8-10 times more expensive than standard) Enteral formulas are classed as medical foods, not drugs and are regulated differently
The FDA does not evaluate adult medical foods before they go on the market The government does not require that mfrs prove that formulas are safe and effective or that claims are valid FDA requires that formula mfrs use good manufacturing practices and that products are accurately labeled It is up to the clinician to evaluate the evidence that supports the claims regarding medical foods
Is the nutrient profile appropriate based on the known metabolic needs and nutrient requirements of the condition Are there prospective double-blind RCTs to support claims (not case reports)
Data obtained using animal models may have limited application to humans
Product-specific research applies to that product only
Research cannot always be generalized to a different population (studies in burn patients to trauma pts) Were the endpoints clinically significant (a biochemical marker only or important clinical outcome such as wound healing)? Who funded the study? Has the work been replicated?
Amount and type of CHO modified to reduce blood glucose response Increased fat content (may have increased monounsaturated fats) Results of studies using these formulas have been mixed Most standard enteral formulas fall within American Diabetes Association guidelines for macronutrient mix
Blood glucose control in acute care is often affected by illness, infection, other issues Patients on enteral feedings generally receive a more consistent CHO intake than persons on oral diets May be worth trying diabetes formulas in patients who have failed to achieve good blood glucose control on standard formulas
Generally have reduced aromatic amino acids and increased branched chain amino acids More expensive than standard products Often lower in protein than standard formulas (may be too low for most liver patients) Research using these products has been inconclusive Standard (high protein) products are generally appropriate for patients with liver disease
Originally developed in an effort to delay the need for dialysis as long as possible Typically are calorie dense (2.0 kcal/cc) products with relatively low protein levels and modified electrolytes Generally too low in protein for dialyzed patients and acutely ill patients May be useful for short term use as supplement or calorie source in predialysis chronic renal failure patients
Novasource Renal
Have added immune-enhancing nutrients (arginine, glutamine, omega-3 fatty acids, nucleotides) Results of research have been mixed Multiplicity of active ingredients makes it difficult to control variables Meta-analysis suggests that they might be most beneficial in surgical patients Some evidence of harm in septic patients
R.3 Immune-enhancing EN is not recommended for routine use in critically ill patients in the ICU. Immune-enhancing EN is not associated with reduced infectious complications, LOS, reduced cost of medical care, days on mechanical ventilation or mortality in moderately to less severely ill ICU patients. Their use may be associated with increased mortality in severely ill ICU patients, although adequately-powered trials evaluating this have not been conducted. Strength: Fair; imperative
For the trauma patient, it is not recommended to routinely use immuneenhancing EN, as its use is not associated with reduced mortality, reduced LOS, reduced infectious complications or fewer days on mechanical ventilation.
Immune-Enhancing Formulas
Contain higher percentage of total calories from fat to reduce respiratory quotient and make it easier to wean from respirator However, total calorie intake has more impact on respiratory function than formula composition There is a lack of clinical trials demonstrating a clear benefit
High fat gastric feedings may cause delayed emptying in critically ill patients
Rehydration: for patients requiring optimal ratio of carbohydrate to electrolytes to facilitate fluid and electrolyte absorption, rehydration Modular: provides protein, fat, or carbohydrate as single nutrients or modular mixtures to allow adjustment of macronutrient mix. May also contribute to renal solute load, osmolality
CHO content ranges from 40-90% of total calories Typically some combination of hydrolyzed cornstarch, maltodextrins, corn syrup solids, sucrose FOS: fructooligosaccharides; poorly absorbed in the small intestine, fermented in the large intestine; may promote growth of healthy bacteria
Fiber: soy polysaccharide (most common) guar gum, oat fiber, pectin
Fat provides isotonic, concentrated energy source Corn and soybean oil common Also safflower, canola, fish oil May include MCTs; more easily digested and absorbed Fat content ranges from <10% to >50% of calories
ASPEN. The science and practice of nutrition support. A casebased core curriculum. 2001; 148
Whole protein, hydrolyzed protein, free amino acids Casein, soy protein, lactalbumin, whey, egg white albumin Small peptides absorbed as efficiently as free amino acids Free amino acids are more hyperosmolar
Arginine: conditionally essential amino acid with immune-enhancing properties. Research suggests some benefit in wound healing (rat studies and biochemical changes.) Recent research suggests may be harmful in septic patients
Glutamine: may enhance small intestine growth and repair; however, available research done with parenteral glutamine; enteral delivery not well studied
Branched-Chain Amino Acids: evaluated in critical care and liver failure patients in the 70s and 80s
Many health care organizations find it cost-effective to establish an enteral formulary based on clinical effectiveness and cost The health care organization or management company may purchase from one company or several
Evaluate common diagnoses of patients on enteral formulas and the formulas most often used in the past year
Identify categories of formulas that fill a need, such as standard 1 kcal/cc formula; standard 1 kcal/cc high protein formula; calorie dense formula (1.5 or 2.0 calories/cc); fiber-containing, monomeric, etc.
Write generic specifications for each product category
Identify commercially available products that fit into each category Where several formulas fit, choose based on cost, service, available packaging (closed vs open system)
Open System
Product is decanted into a feeding bag Allows modulars such as protein and fiber to be added to feeding formulas Less waste in unstable patients (maybe) Shortens hang time Increases nursing time
Containers sterile until spiked for hanging Can be used for continuous or bolus delivery No flexibility in formula additives
Closed System
Hang time 8 hours for decanted formula; 4 hours for formula mixtures Feeding bag and tubing should be rinsed each time formula replenished Contaminated feedings are associated with pt morbidity
Hang time 24-48 hours based on mfr recommendations Y port can be used to deliver additional fluid and modulars May result in less formula waste as open system formula should be discarded p 8 hours
In a survey of nurses at MetroHealth, only 28% were aware of the 8 hour hang time for open system formulas written into nursing policy 55% recommended adding new formula to old, in violation of existing nursing protocol 66% could state the 24 hang time for closed system formulas
The cost of wasted formula is minimal compared to the cost of nursing time and risk of illness in patients
Luther H, Barco K, Chima CS, Yowler CJ. Comparative study of two systems of delivering supplemental protein with standardized tube feedings. J Burn Care Rehabil 2003;24:167-172.
36.6
N=5; P=.05
Luther H, Barco K, Chima CS, Yowler CJ. J Burn Care Rehabil 2003;24:167-172.