Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27051616›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of critical illness and injury science

Continuous versus bolus tube feeds: Does the modality affect glycemic variability, tube feeding volume, caloric intake, or insulin utilization?

David C Evans, Rachel Forbes, Christian Jones, Robert Cotterman, Chinedu Njoku, Cattleya Thongrong, David Tulman, Sergio D Bergese, Sheela Thomas, Thomas J Papadimos and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of critical illness and injury science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03017079 (A More Physiological Feeding Process in ICU), which is not on this map. Cited by 18 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03017079 nacompletednot on this map

A More Physiological Feeding Process in ICU:the Intermittent Infusion With Semi-solidification of Nutrients

TypeinterventionalSponsorSecond Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University, School of MedicineRan2016 to 2017Enrolled40ConditionsNutrition, EnteralArmssemi-solid agent with standard enteral feeding, standard enteral feeding
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David C EvansDepartment of Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Rachel ForbesDepartment of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Christian JonesDepartment of Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Robert CottermanDepartment of Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Chinedu NjokuDepartment of Surgery, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Cattleya ThongrongDepartment of Anesthesiology, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
David TulmanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Sergio D BergeseDepartment of Anesthesiology, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Sheela ThomasDepartment of Clinical Nutrition, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Thomas J PapadimosDepartment of Anesthesiology, Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Stanislaw P StawickiDepartment of Research and Innovation, St. Luke's University Hospital, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA.
The Ohio State University · USSt. Luke's University Health Network · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEnteral nutrition (EN) is very important to optimizing outcomes in critical illness. Debate exists regarding the best strategy for enteral tube feeding (TF), with concerns that bolus TF (BTF) may increase glycemic variability (GV) but result in fewer nutritional interruptions than continuous TF (CTF). This study examines if there is a difference in GV, insulin usage, TF volume, and caloric delivery among intensive care patients receiving BTF versus CTF. We hypothesize that there are no significant differences between CTF and BTF when comparing the above parameters. MATERIALS AND

methodsProspective, randomized pilot study of critically ill adult patients undergoing percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement for EN was performed between March 1, 2012 and May 15, 2014. Patients were randomized to BTF or CTF. Glucose values, insulin use, TF volume, and calories administered were recorded. Data were organized into 12-h epochs for statistical analyses and GV determination. In addition, time to ≥80% nutritional delivery goal, demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, and TF interruptions were examined. When performing BTF versus CTF assessments, continuous parameters were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test or repeated measures t-test, as appropriate. Categorical data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test.

resultsNo significant demographic or physiologic differences between the CTF (n = 24) and BTF (n = 26) groups were seen. The immediate post-PEG 12-h epoch showed significantly lower GV and median TF volume for patients in the CTF group. All subsequent epochs (up to 18 days post-PEG) showed no differences in GV, insulin use, TF volume, or caloric intake. Insulin use for both groups increased when comparing the first 24 h post-PEG values to measurements from day 8. There were no differences in TF interruptions, time to ≥80% nutritional delivery goal, or hypoglycemic episodes.

conclusionsThis study demonstrated no clinically relevant differences in GV, insulin use, TF volume or caloric intake between BTF and CTF groups. Despite some shortcomings, our data suggest that providers should not feel limited to BTF or CTF because of concerns for GV, time to goal nutrition, insulin use, or caloric intake, and should consider other factors such as resource utilization, ease of administration, and/or institutional/patient characteristics.

Indexed as

Continuous tube feedingenteral nutritionglycemic variabilityintermittent tube feedingpercutaneous endoscopic gastrostomytube feeding

Identifiers

PMID27051616
PMCPMC4795366
OpenAlexW2276477715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.