Evidence Hub

Gastrointestinal dysfunction during enteral nutrition delivery in intensive care unit (ICU) patients: Risk factors, natural history, and clinical implications. A post-hoc analysis of The Augmented versus Routine approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET)

Tejaswini Arunachala Murthy, L. Chapple, K. Lange, C. Marathe, M. Horowitz, S. Peake, M. Chapman

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2022

3,876 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Slow gastric emptying occurs frequently during critical illness and is roughly quantified at bedside by large gastric residual volumes (GRVs). A previously published trial (The Augmented versus Routine approach to Giving Energy Trial; TARGET) reported larger GRVs with energy-dense (1.5 kcal/mL) compared with standard (1.0 kcal/mL) enteral nutrition (EN), warranting further exploration. Objective To assess the incidence, risk factors, duration, and timing of large GRVs (≥250 mL) and its relation to clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated adults. Methods A post-hoc analysis of TARGET data in patients with ≥1 GRV recorded. Data are n (%) or median [IQR]. Results Of 3876 included patients, 1777 (46%) had ≥1 GRV ≥250 mL, which was more common in males (50 compared with 39%; P < 0.001) and in patients receiving energy-dense compared with standard EN (52 compared with 40%; RR = 1.27 (95% CI: 1.19, 1.36); P < 0.001) in whom it also lasted longer (1 [0–2] compared with 0 [0–1] d; P < 0.001), with no difference in time of onset after EN initiation (day 1 [0–2] compared with 1 [0–2]; P = 0.970). Patients with GRV ≥250 mL were more likely to have the following: vasopressor administration (88 compared with 76%; RR = 1.15 [1.12, 1.19]; P < 0.001), positive blood cultures (16 compared with 8%; RR = 1.92 [1.60, 2.31]; P < 0.001), intravenous antimicrobials (88 compared with 81%; RR = 1.09 [1.06, 1.12]; P < 0.001), and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 3,876 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