Table 2

Results of randomized trails of nutrition and nosocomial pneumonia

Intervention (author [reference])

Pneumonia rates

Relative risk (95% Cl)

Nasogastric enteral nutrition vs parenteral nutrition (Young [22])

TPN: 6/23 (26%)

1.23 (0.51–2.95)

EN: 9/28 (32%)

Jejunostomy feeding vs total parenteral nutrition (Moore [23])

TPN: 6/30 (20%)

Undefined

EN: 0/29 (0%)

Jejunostomy feeding vs total parenteral nutrition (Kudsk [24])

TPN: 14/45 (31%)

0.38 (0.16–0.90)

EN: 6/51 (12%)

Jejunostomy feeding vs total parenteral nutrition (Borzotta [25])

TPN: 9/23 (39%)

1.06 (0.56–2.02)

EN: 15/36 (42%)

Early nasoduodenal vs late nasoduodenal feeding (Eyer [26])

Late: 4/19 (21%)

2.00 (0.72–5.54)

Early: 8/19 (42%)

Jejunal vs gastric feeding (Montecalvo [27])

Gastric: 2/19 (11%)

Undefined

Jejunal: 0/19 (0%)

Intermittent enteral feeding vs continuous enteral feeding (Bonten [28])

CEF: 5/30 (17%)

1.0 (0.32–3.10)

IEF: 5/30 (17%)

Modular tube feeding (MTF) vs Osmolite vs Traumacal (Gottschlich [29])

Osmolite: 6/14 (43%)

0.27 (0.07–1.15)^*

Traumacal: 9/19 (47%)

0.25 (0.06-0.99)^†

MTF: 2/17 (12%)

Immun-Aid vs Vivonex (Moore [30])

Vivonex: 4/47 (9%)

0.92 (0.24–3.48)

Immun-Aid: 4/51 (8%)

Immun-Aid vs Promote (Kudsk [31])

Promote: 3/17 (18%)

Undefined

Immun-Aid: 0/16 (0%)

Abbreviations: EN = enteral nutrition; TPN = total parenteral nutrition; CEF = continuous enteral feeding; IEF = intermittent enteral feeding. ^* Osmolite compared to MTF. ^† Traumacal compared to MTF.

Cook et al. Critical Care 1997 1:3   doi:10.1186/cc1