Volume‐Based Feeding Enhances Enteral Delivery by Maximizing the Optimal Rate of Enteral Feeding (FEED MORE). Issue 6 (21st October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Holyk, Amanda; Belden, Valerie; Sirimaturos, Michael; Chiles, Kathryn; Fontenot, Nicole; Lista, Annette; Broadway, Mary K.; Leon, Raul Sanchez
• Is Part Of: JPEN, Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. Volume 44:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 1038
• Page End: 1046
• Publication Date: 2019-10-21
• Subjects: adult -- critical care -- enteral nutrition -- outcomes research/quality -- volume‐based feeding; Parenteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral feeding -- Periodicals; 615.85484
• DOI: 10.1002/jpen.1727
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-6071

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The importance of enteral nutrition (EN) in critically ill patients is well documented. However, actual administration of EN frequently does not amount to prescribed nutrition goals. Persistent underfeeding may lead to impaired immune response, increased mortality, and higher costs. Traditionally, EN uses a rate‐based approach, utilizing slow titration to goal and a final fixed hourly rate, regardless of interruptions in feeding. Volume‐based feeding (VBF) establishes a 24‐hour EN goal volume, and the rate varies to achieve this daily goal when interruptions occur. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective, single‐center, quasi‐experimental study comparing traditional rate‐based feeding (RBF) to VBF in adult patients admitted to the medical and neurosurgical intensive care units (ICUs). The primary outcome was mean percentage of total goal energy received after EN initiation until 7 days, transfer from ICU, removal of feeding tube, or oral diet order placed. Secondary outcomes included mean percentage of total goal protein received, percentage of patients meeting 80% of nutrition goals, incidence of gastric residual volumes >400 mL, and incidence of moderate hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL). Results: The study enrolled 189 patients. Mean percentage of goal energy delivered (75% RBF, 102% VBF; P < .001) and goal protein delivered (68% RBF, 87% VBF; P < .001) was significantly higher with VBF compared with RBF. Conclusion: VBF demonstrated a significant increase in energy and protein delivery with no major safety or tolerability issues. VBF should be considered for use in ICU patients to optimize nutrition delivery.