Search

Background: The primary objective of this study is to comparatively assess the safety of nasogastric (NG) feeding versus nasojejunal (NJ) feeding in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP), with a special focus on the initiation of these feeding methods within the first 48 h of hospital admission. Methods: Studies were identified through a systematic search in PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science. Four studies involving 217 patients were included. This systematic review assesses the safety and efficacy of nasogastric versus nasojejunal feeding initiated within 48 h post-admission in moderate/severe acute pancreatitis, with a specific focus on the timing of initiation and patient age as influential factors. Results: The results showed that the mortality rates were similar between NG and NJ feeding groups (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.77, P = 0.68). Significant differences were observed in the incidence of diarrhea (RR 2.75, 95% CI 1.21 to 6.25, P = 0.02) and pain (RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.50 to 5.64, P = 0.002) in the NG group. The NG group also showed a higher probability of infection (6.67% vs. 3.33%, P = 0.027) and a higher frequency of multiple organ failures. Subgroup analysis for early intervention (within 48 h) showed a higher risk of diarrhea in the NG group (RR 2.80, P = 0.02). No significant differences were found in the need for surgical intervention, parenteral nutrition, or success rates of feeding procedures. Conclusion: This meta-analysis highlights the importance of considering the method and timing of nutritional support in acute pancreatitis. While NG feeding within 48 h of admission increases the risk of certain complications such as diarrhea and infection, it does not significantly impact mortality or the need for surgical intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite increasing evidence of the potential inaccuracy and unwarranted practice of regular GRV measurement in critically in adults, this practice persists within the United Kingdom., Aim: To explore adult intensive care nurses' decision-making around the practice of GRV measurement to guide enteral feeding., Methods: A cross-sectional 16 item electronic survey in four adult intensive care units (ICUs) in England and Wales., Results: Two hundred and seventy-three responses were obtained across four ICUs with acceptable response rates for most [Unit 1 74 /127 = 58.2%; Unit 2 87/129 = 67.4%; Unit 3 77/120 = 64.1%; Unit 4 35/168 = 20.8%]. Most (243/273 (89%) reported measuring GRV 4-6 hourly, with most (223/273 82%) reporting that the main reason was to assess feed tolerance or intolerance and 37/273 (13.5%) saying their unit protocol required it. In terms of factors affecting decision-making, volume obtained was the most important factor, followed by the condition of the patient, with aspirate colour and appearance less important. When asked how they would feel about not measuring GRV routinely, the majority (78.2%) of nurses felt worried (140/273 = 51.2%) or very worried (74/273 = 27%)., Conclusions: Factors affecting the nurses' decision-making around GRV were based largely on fear of risk (around vomiting and pulmonary aspiration) and compliance with unit protocols., Relevance to Clinical Practice: Despite increasing evidence suggesting it is unnecessary, nurses' beliefs around the value of this practice persist and it continues to be embedded into unit protocols around feeding., (© 2024 The Authors. Nursing in Critical Care published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Critical Care Nurses.)