Evidence Hub

Intermittent versus continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill children: a pre-planned secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study

E. Martinez, L. Bechard, Ann-Marie Brown, J. Coss-Bu, S. Kudchadkar, T. Mikhailov, V. Srinivasan, S. Staffa et al.

Clinical Nutrition, 2022

1,375 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Background & Aims- Intermittent enteral nutrition (EN) may have physiologic benefits over continuous feeding in critical illness. We aimed to compare nutrition and infection outcomes in critically ill children receiving intermittent or continuous EN. Methods- International, multi-center prospective observational study of mechanically ventilated children, 1 month to 18 years of age, receiving EN. Percent energy or protein adequacy (energy or protein delivered / prescribed x 100) and acquired infection rates were compared between intermittent and continuous EN groups using adjusted-multivariable and 4:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed after excluding patients who crossed over between intermittent and continuous EN. Results- 1,375 eligible patients from 66 PICUs were included. Patients receiving continuous EN (N=1093) had a higher prevalence of respiratory illness and obesity, and lower prevalence of neurologic illness and underweight status on admission, compared to those on intermittent EN (N=282). Percent energy or protein adequacy, proportion of patients who achieved 60% of energy or protein adequacy in the first 7 days of admission, and rates of acquired infection were not different between the 2 groups in adjusted-multivariable and propensity score matching analyses (P>0.05). Conclusion- Intermittent versus continuous EN strategy is not associated with differences in energy or protein adequacy, or acquired infections, in…

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: 1,375 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