A Review of the Tolerance and Adequacy of Enteral Nutrition Administered in the Prone Position in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation. (7th June 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ellis, Carolyn; Brown, Miranda; Rosario, Kristine Anne Del; Heiden, Paige; Salazar, Gabriella; Sackey, Joachim; Brody, Rebecca; Tomesko, Jennifer
• Is Part Of: Current developments in nutrition. Volume 5(2021)Supplement 2
• Page Start: 216
• Page End: 216
• Publication Date: 2021-06-07
• Subjects: Nutrition -- Periodicals; Nutritional Physiological Phenomena; Nutrition; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Internet Resources; Periodicals; 612.3
• DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzab029_017
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2475-2991

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: During the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, more patients require enteral nutrition (EN) while mechanically ventilated in the prone position (PP). Prone positioning may improve oxygenation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation; however, it is unclear how it affects EN adequacy and tolerance. This review explored how EN delivered in the PP impacts EN tolerance (vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal distention, or aspiration pneumonia) and adequacy (meeting estimated energy and protein requirements) in critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, and Cochrane Library for English-language studies exploring EN administered in the PP published between 2000–2020. Studies that met inclusion criteria enrolled adult patients in intensive care units with acute respiratory distress syndrome or other respiratory conditions requiring mechanical ventilation, were cohort studies with ≥5 patients per study group, and had a dropout rate <20%. Studies were excluded if patients received only parenteral nutrition. Results: Of 45 studies, 4 met inclusion criteria. Three were prospective cohorts and 1 was a before-after study. When comparing EN tolerance in the PP and supine positions, 1 study found no difference in diarrhea occurrence, 2 studies found no difference in the rate of vomiting, and 1 study found significantly higher rates of vomiting while in the PP. For feeding adequacy, 2 studies found no difference in the % of calories received when administered in prone or supine positions, while 1 study found patients in the PP received significantly less EN volume than patients in the supine position. One study concluded that prophylactic prokinetic agent use and head elevation while prone resulted in larger EN volumes delivered with reduced vomiting risk. Conclusions: These results suggest the adequacy of EN delivered in the PP is comparable to the supine position and PP does not substantially increase vomiting or diarrhea risk. Prone positioning should not be considered an immediate contraindication to EN for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. These findings may apply to the nutritional management of critically ill mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19. Funding Sources: None