Gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition in ICU patients: the REGANE study
- 4.9k Downloads
To compare the effects of increasing the limit for gastric residual volume (GRV) in the adequacy of enteral nutrition. Frequency of gastrointestinal complications and outcome variables were secondary goals.
An open, prospective, randomized study.
Twenty-eight intensive care units in Spain.
Three hundred twenty-nine intubated and mechanically ventilated adult patients with enteral nutrition (EN).
EN was administered by nasogastric tube. A protocol for management of EN-related gastrointestinal complications was used. Patients were randomized to be included in a control (GRV = 200 ml) or in study group (GRV = 500 ml).
Measurements and results
Diet volume ratio (diet received/diet prescribed), incidence of gastrointestinal complications, ICU-acquired pneumonia, days on mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay were the study variables.
Gastrointestinal complications were higher in the control group (63.6 vs. 47.8%, P = 0.004), but the only difference was in the frequency of high GRV (42.4 vs. 26.8%, P = 0.003). The diet volume ratio was higher for the study group only during the 1st week (84.48 vs. 88.20%) (P = 0.0002). Volume ratio was similar for both groups in weeks 3 and 4. Duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay or frequency of pneumonia were similar.
Diet volume ratio of mechanically ventilated patients treated with enteral nutrition is not affected by increasing the limit in GRV. A limit of 500 ml is not associated with adverse effects in gastrointestinal complications or in outcome variables. A value of 500 ml can be equally recommended as a normal limit for GRV.
KeywordsEnteral nutrition Gastric residual volume Mechanical ventilation Ventilator-associated pneumonia Intensive care unit
We thank Nestle Nutrition (Spain) for their financial support for the statistical analysis. Thanks also to the members of the SEMICYUC Metabolic and Nutritional Working Group, Spain, for their participation in this multicenter study.
- 2.Montejo JC, Grau T, Acosta J, Ruiz-Santana S, Planas M, García-De-Lorenzo A, Mesejo A, Cervera M, Sánchez-Alvarez C, Núñez-Ruiz R, López-Martínez J, Nutritional and Metabolic Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units (2002) Multicenter, prospective, randomized, single-blind study comparing the efficacy and gastrointestinal complications of early jejunal feeding with early gastric feeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 30:796–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Grau T, Bonet A, Grupo de Trabajo de Metabolismo y Nutrición de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva Critica y Unidades Coronarias (2005) [Multicenter study on incidence of total parenteral nutrition complications in the critically-ill patient. ICOMEP study. Part II] Nutr Hosp 20:278–285Google Scholar
- 8.McClave SA, Snider HL, Lowen CC, McLaughlin AJ, Greene LM, McCombs RJ, Rodgers L, Wright RA, Roy TM, Schumer MP et al (1992) Use of residual volume as a marker for enteral feeding intolerance: Prospective blinded comparison with physical examination and radiographic findings. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 16:99–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ortiz C, Montejo JC, Jiménez FJ, Lopez J, García de Lorenzo A, Grau T, Acosta J, Mesejo A, Fernandez F, Ordoñez FJ, Bonet A, Blesa A, Grupo de Trabajo de Metabolismo y Nutricion de la SEMICYUC (2005) [Recommendations for nutritional assessment and specialized nutritional support of critically ill patients] Nutr Hosp 20 Suppl 2:1–3Google Scholar
- 35.Anbar R, Theilla M, Lev S, Shapiro H, Shalita M, Madar Z, Cohen J, Singer P (2009) Tight calorie balance control decreases hospital mortality in a prospective randomized controlled study: the final single center TICACOS results. Clin Nutr Suppl. 4:7 (Abstract)Google Scholar