Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 Food Security Research Center and Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Food Security Research Center and Department of Food Science and Technology, School of Nutrition and Food Science, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
4 Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
5 Food Security Research Center and Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan; Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
6 Food Security Research Center and Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan; Department of Community Nutrition, School of Nutritional Sciences and Dietetics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences; Diabetes Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Background: Nutritional support plays a major role in the management of critically ill patients. This study aimed to compare the nutritional quality of enteral nutrition solutions (noncommercial vs. commercial) and the amount of energy and nutrients delivered and required in patients receiving these solutions. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among 270 enterally fed patients. Demographic and clinical data in addition to values of nutritional needs and intakes were collected. Moreover, enteral nutrition solutions were analyzed in a food laboratory. Results: There were 150 patients who fed noncommercial enteral nutrition solutions (NCENS) and 120 patients who fed commercial enteral nutrition solutions (CENSs). Although energy and nutrients contents in CENSs were more than in NCENSs, these differences regarding energy, protein, carbohydrates, phosphorus, and calcium were not statistically significant. The values of energy and macronutrients delivered in patients who fed CENSs were higher (P < 0.001). Energy, carbohydrate, and fat required in patients receiving CENSs were provided, but protein intake was less than the required amount. In patients who fed NCENSs, only the values of fat requirement and intake were not significantly different, but other nutrition delivered was less than required amounts (P < 0.001). CENSs provided the nutritional needs of higher numbers of patients (P < 0.001). In patients receiving CENSs, nutrient adequacy ratio and also mean adequacy ratio were significantly higher than the other group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: CENSs contain more energy and nutrients compared with NCENSs. They are more effective to meet the nutritional requirements of entirely fed patients.
Keywords
1. | |
2. |
Fernández-Ortega JF, Herrero Meseguer JI, Martínez García P; Metabolism and Nutrition Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units. Guidelines for specialized nutritional and metabolic support in the critically-ill patient: Update. Consensus SEMICYUC-SENPE: Indications, timing and routes of nutrient delivery. Nutr Hosp 2011;26 Suppl 2:7-11. |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. | |
7. | |
8. | |
9. | |
10. | |
11. | |
12. | |
13. | |
14. | |
15. | |
16. | |
17. |
Kalantari H, Barekat SM, Maracy MR, Azadbakht L, Shahshahan Z. Nutritional status in patients with ulcerative colitis in Isfahan, Iran. Adv Biomed Res 2014;3:58. [PUBMED] [Full text] |
18. | |
19. | |
20. | |
21. | |
22. | |
23. | |
24. | |
25. | |
26. | |
27. | |
28. | |
29. | |
30. | |
31. | |
32. | |
33. | |
34. | |
35. | |
36. | |
37. | |
38. | |
39. | |
40. | |
41. | |
42. | |
43. |