Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33643431›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Intensive Care Society2021

Feasibility, tolerance and effectiveness of enteral feeding in critically ill patients in prone position.

Raymond Dominic Savio, Rajalakshmi Parasuraman, Daphnee Lovesly, Bhuvaneshwari Shankar, Lakshmi Ranganathan, Nagarajan Ramakrishnan, Ramesh Venkataraman

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Intensive Care Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Interruption of enteral tube feeding during chest physiotherapy in critically ill adults: A scoping review.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. COVID, the Gut, and Nutritional Implications.Current surgery reports · 2023
    Review
  11. Observational
  12. Nutritional priorities in patients with severe COVID-19.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. [Analysis of risk factors of early enteral nutrition intolerance in extremely severe burn patients].Zhonghua shao shang za zhi = Zhonghua shaoshang zazhi = Chinese journal of burns · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Gastrointestinal Manifestations of COVID-19: Impact on Nutrition Practices.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2020
    Review
  17. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Raymond Dominic SavioDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Rajalakshmi ParasuramanDepartment of Dietetics, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Daphnee LoveslyDepartment of Dietetics, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Bhuvaneshwari ShankarDepartment of Dietetics, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Lakshmi RanganathanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Nagarajan RamakrishnanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Ramesh VenkataramanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Apollo Hospitals, Chennai, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1949-3979
Apollo Hospitals · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo assess the feasibility, tolerance and effectiveness of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the prone position for severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).

methodsProspective observational study conducted in a multidisciplinary critical care unit of a tertiary care hospital from January 2013 until July 2015. All patients with ARDS who received invasive mechanical ventilation in prone position during the study period were included. Patients' demographics, severity of illness (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score), baseline markers of nutritional status (subjective global assessment (SGA) and body mass index), details of nutrition delivery during prone and supine hours and outcomes (Length of stay and discharge status) were recorded.

resultsFifty-one patients met inclusion criteria out of whom four patients were excluded from analysis since they did not receive any enteral nutrition due to severe hemodynamic instability. The mean age of patients was 46.4 ± 12.9 years, with male:female ratio of 7:3. On admission, SGA revealed moderate malnutrition in 51% of patients and the mean APACHE II score was 26.8 ± 9.2. The average duration of prone ventilation per patient was 60.2 ± 30.7 h. All patients received continuous nasogastric/orogastric feeds. The mean calories (kcal/kg/day) and protein (g/kg/day) prescribed in the supine position were 24.5 ± 3.8 and 1.1 ± 0.2 while the mean calories and protein prescribed in prone position were 23.5 ± 3.6 and 1.1 ± 0.2, respectively. Percentage of prescribed calories received by patients in supine position was similar to that in prone position (83.2% vs. 79.6%;

conclusionIn critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the prone position, enteral nutrition with nasogastric/orogastric feeding is feasible and well tolerated. Nutritional delivery of calories and proteins in prone position is comparable to that in supine position.

Indexed as

ARDScalorie goalfeed intolerancenutritionprone ventilation

Identifiers

PMID33643431
PMCPMC7890761
OpenAlexW2999641548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.