Plain language summary
For individuals who are critically ill and cannot eat, the use of a tube through the mouth is the preferred way to ensure nutrition needs are met. However, complications such as diarrhoea and vomiting often means that these individuals still do not achieve optimal nutrition. In these instances, giving individuals nutrients directly into a vein alongside the feeding tube is an option to ensure they do not become nutrient deficient. This is known as a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition. However, studies on the use of this combination are limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 studies aimed to determine the effects of a combination of enteral and parenteral feeding on clinical outcomes compared to a feeding tube alone. The results showed that compared to enteral feeding alone the combination decreased infections and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. There was a very small effect on duration of ventilation and no effects were seen on length of hospital stay nor length of ICU stay. It was concluded that enteral feeding alone is insufficient to meet the nutritional needs of critically ill patients. Supplementing in parenteral nutrition may be of benefit to these individuals and help decrease infections and improve ICU mortality. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that the health of patients who are being fed through a tube may be compromised through malnutrition and that supplemental ways of getting more nutrients into these individuals is of importance.
Abstract
Enteral nutrition (EN) is considered the first feeding route for critically ill patients. However, adverse effects such as gastrointestinal complications limit its optimal provision, leading to inadequate energy and protein intake. We compared the clinical outcomes of supplemental parenteral nutrition added to EN (SPN + EN) and EN alone in critically ill adults. Electronic databases restricted to full-text randomized controlled trials available in the English language and published from January 1990 to January 2019 were searched. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and the meta-analysis was conducted using the MedCalc software. A total of five studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to EN alone, SPN + EN decreased the risk of nosocomial infections (relative risk (RR) = 0.733, p = 0.032) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR = 0.569, p = 0.030). No significant differences were observed between SPN + EN and EN in the length of hospital stay, hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. In conclusion, when enteral feeding fails to fulfill the energy requirements in critically ill adult patients, SPN may be beneficial as it helps in decreasing nosocomial infections and ICU mortality, in addition to increasing energy and protein intakes with no negative effects on other clinical outcomes.
Methodological quality
Jadad score
:
Not applicable
Allocation concealment
:
Not applicable
