Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of enteral nutrition in prone position among critically ill ventilated patients: a meta-analysis

An Yong, Xinxin Li, L. Peng, Shou-Zhen Cheng, Wen Qiu

Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques, 2024

1,984 participants · 6 citations

Abstract

Introduction Prone positioning in critical care units may reduce mortality in specific patients who have been admitted with severe conditions. Aim The current meta-analysis aims to assess the impact of prone compared to supine position besides the safety and tolerability of different enteral feeding techniques in critically ill patients regarding mortality, pneumonia, aspiration, and vomiting. Material and methods A systematic literature search found 25 relevant trials involving 1984 participants at the start of the study. Statistical analysis using the dichotomous analysis methods was used within the fixed model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results In comparison with the post-pyloric nutrition group, gastric feeding had no significant impact on the mortality rate (OR = 1; 95% CI: 0.76–1.32). While the findings showed a significantly higher incidence of pneumonia with gastric feeding compared with post-pyloric nutrition (OR = 1.92; 95% CI: 1.43–-2.57), there was no significant difference regarding pulmonary aspiration and vomiting (OR = 1.41; 95% CI: 0.75–2.65 and OR = 0.92; 95% CI:, 0.66–1.27, respectively). Reflux gastric content was significantly higher with gastric nutrition (OR = 8.23; 95% CI: 2.43–27.89). Conclusions From reduced gastrointestinal events to significantly higher vomiting rates, prone position during enteral feeding showed mixed effects. Post-pyloric feeding is more tolerated and safer compared with gastric…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,984 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free