This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Iglesias, S. B. d. O. Articles by de Carvalho, W. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Iglesias, S. B. d. O. Articles by de Carvalho, W. B. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Enteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Children: Are Prescription and Delivery According to Their Energy Requirements?

Simone Brasil de Oliveira Iglesias, MD, MSc^*
Heitor Pons Leite, MD, PhD
Juliana Fernandez Santana e Meneses, RD, MSc
Werther Brunow de Carvalho, MD, PhD^*

^* Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and Discipline of Nutrition and Metabolism, Department of Pediatrics, Federal University of São Paulo, Escola Paulista de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil

Correspondence: Correspondence: Heitor Pons Leite, MD, PhD, Discipline of Nutrition and Metabolism, Department of Pediatrics, Federal University of São Paulo, Rua Loefgreen 1647, Zip Code 04040–032, São Paulo SP, Brazil. Electronic mail may be sent to heitorpl{at}terra.com.br.

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the differences between prescribed and delivered energy among critically ill children and to identify the factors that impede the optimal delivery of enteral nutrition in the first 5 days of nutrition support. Methods: In a prospective cohort study, we evaluated 55 critically ill children aged 8.2 ± 11.4 months (0–162.3 months), who were fed for 2 days through a gastric or postpyloric tube. The patients were followed from admission until day 10 of enteral nutrition. Prescribed and delivered energy were recorded daily and compared with each other and with the estimated basal metabolic rate (BMR). The Paediatric Index of Mortality 2 (PIM 2) was used to estimate illness severity. Results: The ratio of delivered:required energy was <90% in 55.7% of the enteral nutrition days. Low prescription was the main reason for not achieving the energy goal in the first 5 days of enteral nutrition. Discrepancies between prescribed and delivered: energy were attributable to interruptions in feeding caused by clinical instability, airway management, radiologic and surgical procedures, and accidental feeding tube removal. The other factors associated with the delivery of less than required energy were PIM 2 15%, gastrointestinal complications, dialysis, and use of -adrenergic vasoactive drugs. The latter was the only variable in multivariate analysis that was associated with not ultimately achieving energy goal. Conclusions: The prescription and delivery of energy were not adequate in >50% of enteral nutrition days. The gap between the effective administration and energy requirements can be explained by both underprescription and underdelivery. Administration of vasoactive drugs was the only variable independently associated with a low energy supply.

Nutrition in Clinical Practice, Vol. 22, No. 2, 233-239 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0115426507022002233


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. M. Mehta Approach to Enteral Feeding in the PICU Nutr Clin Pract, June 1, 2009; 24(3): 377 - 387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. M. Mehta, C. Compher, and A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines: Nutrition Support of the Critically Ill Child JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, May 1, 2009; 33(3): 260 - 276. [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. E. Skillman and P. E. Wischmeyer Nutrition Therapy in Critically Ill Infants and Children JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr, September 1, 2008; 32(5): 520 - 534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]