Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Critical Care and BioMed Central.

This article is part of the supplement: 32nd International Symposium on Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Poster presentation

Frequency, determinants and impact of feed intolerance amongst the critically ill

U Gungabissoon1*, K Hacquoil1, C Bains1, G Dukes2, M Irizarry3 and D Heyland3

  • * Corresponding author: U Gungabissoon

Author Affiliations

1 GlaxoSmithKline, Stockley Park, UK

2 GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

3 CERU, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada

For all author emails, please log on.

Critical Care 2012, 16(Suppl 1):P161  doi:10.1186/cc10768

The electronic version of this article is the complete one and can be found online at: http://ccforum.com/content/16/S1/P161


Published:20 March 2012

© 2012 Gungabissoon et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Introduction

Provision of early and adequate enteral nutrition (EN) to critically ill patients is associated with improved clinical outcomes; however, 50 to 60% of prescribed EN is received. We aimed to characterise the incidence and determinants of intolerance and assess its influence on nutritional and clinical outcomes using the 2009 Critical Care Nutrition Survey (CCNS).

Methods

The CCNS survey is a prospective observational cohort study of nutrition practices from over 150 ICUs around the world. Included patients were those that remained in ICU for ≥72 hours and were mechanically ventilated ≤48 hours of admission to ICU. We collected pertinent baseline and outcome data that included nutritional adequacy, ventilator-free days, 60-day mortality and ICU stay. Intolerance was defined as interruption of EN due to gastrointestinal (GI) reasons (high gastric residuals, increased abdominal girth/abdominal distension, vomiting/emesis, diarrhoea or subjective discomfort). In the analysis of intolerance we included each potential effect into a logistic regression analysis to determine its significance.

Results

Data from 1,888 ICU patients receiving EN were analysed. The incidence of intolerance was 30.5%, and occurred after a median 3 days from EN initiation. Factors associated with intolerance were: diagnosis category (P = 0.0009) (GI, cardiovascular and sepsis categories with the highest risk), pre-emptive motility agent use (P = 0.0125), non-GI interruptions to feed (P = 0.0086) and global region (P = 0.0006). Intolerance was associated with poor nutritional adequacy, increased mortality, longer ventilator dependence and increased length of ICU stay (P < 0.05) (Table 1). Poorer clinical outcomes were seen with increasing number of days of intolerance.

Table 1. Nutritional adequacy and clinical endpoints in tolerant and intolerant EN patients

Conclusion

Intolerance is common amongst the EN ICU population and is associated with poor nutritional and clinical outcomes.