Administration of enteral nutrition to adult patients in the prone position
Section snippets
Background
Critical illness is associated with catabolic stress leading to a pro-inflammatory state and many physiologic derangements that may contribute to multi-organ dysfunction, infection and death. Historically, nutrition support in critically ill patients had been thought of as adjunctive therapy to maintain homeostasis and lean body mass. More recently, nutrition support is considered to be therapeutic, in that it decreases the metabolic response to stress, prevents cell injury and has favourable
Methods
A literature search of MEDLINE (1966–May 2013) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA; 1977 to May 2013) was conducted using the search terms enteral nutrition, enteral feeding, tube feeding, prone position and rotational therapy. References of identified articles were reviewed for additional citations. All English-language articles describing human studies were screened. Included studies had to have at least two groups for comparison, one or all of which had to contain patients
Results
Of identified clinical studies conducted in adults, two were specifically designed to compare supine and prone position (Reignier et al., 2004, Van der Voort and Zandstra, 2001). A prospective crossover study of mechanically ventilated patients assessed EN tolerability in terms of gastric residual volumes recorded in the supine position versus the prone position (Van der Voort and Zandstra, 2001). Over the course of one year, mechanically ventilated ICU patients who were turned to the prone
Discussion
The ideal study to determine whether EN is tolerated in the prone position is a prospective cross-over study designed to assess the volume of EN received, gastric residual volume and incidence of adverse outcomes such as vomiting. It would be difficult to study the impact of EN on VAP incidence, due to limitations of cross-sectional design and low likelihood of further randomised controlled trials comparing prone and supine positions.
Most identified studies did not use a cross-over design (
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is limited evidence proving the safety and tolerability of EN administered to patients in the prone position; however, the minimal evidence available does not suggest a substantial increase in complications when compared to EN administered in the supine positioning. Close monitoring of tolerance to enteral nutrition is advised for patients in the prone position. Strategies to increase tolerance of EN for patients in the supine position, such as head-of-bed elevation,
Acknowledgement
At the time of writing, Dr. Foellinger was a pharmacy student at Purdue University College of Pharmacy, West Lafayette, IN.
References (38)
- et al.
Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: a meta-analysis
Am J Clin Nutr
(2001) - et al.
Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? A systematic review of the literature
Nutrition
(2004) - et al.
Severe hypoxemic respiratory failure: Part 2 – nonventilatory strategies
Chest
(2010) - et al.
Before-after study of a standardized ICU protocol for early enteral feeding in patients turned in the prone position
Clin Nutr
(2010) - et al.
High-frequency percussive ventilation improves oxygenation in patients with ARDS
Chest
(1999) Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome
N Engl J Med
(2000)Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition
JAMA
(2012)- et al.
Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis
JAMA
(2010) - et al.
Prone positioning in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicenter randomized trial
Intensive Care Med
(2008) - et al.
Proton pump inhibitor-associated pneumonia: not a breath of fresh air after all?
World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther
(2011)