Clinical efficacy of enteral nutrition feeding modalities in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND

In intensive care units (ICUs), both continuous and intermittent feeding are commonly used for early enteral nutrition (EN). However, whether continuous feeding is a preferable feeding modality compared to intermittent feeding remains unclear. Therefore, this meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy of both EN feeding modalities in critically ill patients.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception dates to December 29, 2022. The search did not involve language restrictions (PROSPERO CRD42022371756). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical efficacy and safety of continuous feeding and intermittent feeding in critically ill patients in ICUs were included.

RESULTS

We included 13 RCTs involving 785 patients. Compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding was associated with a lower mortality rate (relative risk [RR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47, 0.98; p = 0.04) but a higher risk of constipation (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02, 2.43; p = 0.04). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) for mortality rate presented a cumulative Z-curve crossing the traditional boundary, but the curve did not cross the TSA boundary for benefit. No significant differences were found in the aspiration/pneumonia rate (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.51, 2.75; p = 0.69), diarrhea rate (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.16; p = 0.26), or increased gastric residual volumes (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.58, 1.90; p = 0.86) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the low certainty of evidence, compared with intermittent feeding, continuous feeding may reduce the mortality rate in critically ill patients in ICU. Additional studies are needed to provide more evidence and validate the findings.