Trial reportShock (Augusta, Ga.)2012
Continuous enteral and parenteral feeding each reduces heart rate variability but differentially influences monocyte gene expression in humans.
Trial report in Shock (Augusta, Ga.), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heart Rate Variability Responses in Children With Medical Complexity Across Sensory Domains.International journal of pediatrics · 2025Article
- Central nervous system injury-induced immune suppression.Neurosurgical focus · 2022Review
- Heart rate variability in critical care medicine: a systematic review.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2017Article
- A path to precision in the ICU.Critical care (London, England) · 2017Review
- Anti-inflammatory effect by exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) in a patient with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA): brief report.Clinical rheumatology · 2014Article
- A Systems Engineering Perspective on Homeostasis and Disease.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Enteral (EN) or parenteral (PN) nutrition is used to support critically ill patients until oral feeding resumes. Enteral nutrition is assumed preferable to PN, but the differential influence on immune function is not well defined. Autonomic nervous activity is known to influence innate immune responses, and we hypothesized that EN and PN could influence both autonomic signaling and gene activation in peripheral blood monocytes (PBMs). Ten subjects (aged 18-36 years) received continuous EN or PN for 72 h. Peripheral blood monocytes were isolated from whole blood before and after continuous feeding and were analyzed for gene expression using a microarray platform. Gene expression after feeding was compared from baseline and between groups. To measure autonomic outflow, subjects also underwent heart rate variability (HRV) monitoring during feeding. Time and frequency domain HRV data were compared between groups and five orally fed subjects for changes from baseline and changes over time. During continuous EN and PN, subjects exhibited declines in both time and frequency domain HRV parameters compared with baseline and with PO subjects, indicating a loss of vagal/parasympathetic tone. However, PN feeding had a much greater influence on PBM gene expression compared with baseline than EN, including genes important to innate immunity. Continuous EN and PN are both associated with decreasing vagal tone over time, yet contribute differently to PBM gene expression, in humans. These preliminary findings support assumptions that PN imposes a systemic inflammatory risk but also imply that continuous feeding, independent of route, may impart additional risk through different mechanisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.