• Feng Tian, Xuejin Gao, Chao Wu, Li Zhang, Xianfeng Xia, and Xinying Wang.
• Research Institute of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
• Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2017 Jan 1; 26 (1): 11-19.

Background And ObjectivesHere we systematically reviewed and quantitatively analyzed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the important initial outcomes of critically ill adults receiving low- and highenergy enteral nutrition.Methods And Study DesignRCTs comparing low- and high-energy supplementation in critically ill adults receiving enteral nutrition admitted to the intensive care unit for an expected stay of >48 h were included. Abstracts submitted to major scientific meetings were included and the primary endpoint was mortality. The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were the effect measures.ResultsEleven RCTs (3,212 patients) were included. The groups did not differ significantly in mortality (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.11; p=0.47), infections morbidity (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.95-1.26; p=0.23), pneumonia morbidity (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.88-1.23; p=0.68), hospital length of stay (WMD -0.27; 95% CI -3.21 to 3.76; p=0.88), intensive care unit length of stay (WMD -0.32; 95% CI, -1.81 to 1.16; p=0.46), mechanical ventilation days (WMD -0.30; 95% CI-1.42 to 0.82; p=0.60). The incidence of gastrointestinal intolerance was significantly lower in the low-energy group (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.65-0.97; p<0.05).ConclusionsThe initial administration of low- versus high-energy supplements did not impact clinical outcomes except for gastrointestinal intolerance in non-malnourished critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition. The initial administration of highrather than low-energy may benefit these patients by reducing infections, but this effect might actually be attributable to the concomitant high protein intake.

25 keywords...

hide…