• Stephen A McClave and Wei-Kuo Chang.
• Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, 550 S. Jackson St., Louisville, Kentucky 40202, USA. samcclave@louisville.edu
• Nutr Clin Pract. 2005 Oct 1;20(5):544-50.

AbstractWhether to provide artificial enteral nutrition therapy to a patient with evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) creates a difficult clinical dilemma. Concern that enteral feeding may contribute to the morbidity associated with GIB leads to delays in initiating enteral therapy or to cessation of feeding in the patient in whom artificial nutrition support has already been started. Surprisingly, evidence of GIB is not an automatic contraindication to further enteral feeding. Depending on the etiology of the GIB, enteral nutrition may protect the gut mucosa and reduce further bleeding in some patients, actually increase risk for rebleeding in other patients, or serve as a moot point with no relation to further bleeding or morbidity in still other patients. In many cases, an endoscopic evaluation is needed to distinguish the differential etiology of the GIB. The nutrition support specialist needs a full understanding of the physiology behind the varying diagnoses for GIB to know whether feedings can be initiated or continued or whether enteral feedings need to be withheld for 48-72 hours until risk for rebleeding and further morbidity is minimized.

11 keywords...

hide…