Optimizing enteral nutrition delivery by implementing volume-based feeding protocol for critically ill patients: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review
Authors' conclusion
Our study revealed that the VBF protocol significantly improved calorie and protein delivery in critically ill patients with no additional risk.
Study context
- Population
- Critically ill adults admitted to ICU
- Participants
- 2,896 adults · 16 studies
- Comparison
- Volume-based feeding vs rate-based feeding protocol for enteral nutrition (EN)
- Outcome
- EN nutrition delivery
Methodological detailsupdated meta-analysis
- Updated meta-analysis
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Energy and protein delivery
VBF vs RBFMD, % (95% CI)P value
Energy delivery
15.41(10.68–20.14)
P < 0.00001Protein delivery
22.05(10.89–33.22)
P = 0.0001Further pooled results
| Outcome | MD (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICU LOSShorter ICU stay in VBF | 0.78 (0.01–1.56) | P = 0.05 | |
| Mechanical ventilation duration | 0.81 (−0.30,1.92) | P = 0.15 | |
| −1012Difference (linear scale) |
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mortality | 1.03 (0.85–1.24) | P = 0.76 | |
| 0.512Relative risk (log scale) |
Safety
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| EN complicationsVBF vs RBF · diarrhea | 0.91 (0.73–1.15) | P = 0.43 | |
| EN complicationsVBF vs RBF · emesis | 1.23 (0.76–1.99) | P = 0.41 | |
| EN complicationsVBF vs RBF · feeding intolerance | 1.14 (0.63–2.09) | P = 0.66 | |
| EN complicationsVBF vs RBF · gastric retention | 0.45 (0.16–1.30) | P = 0.14 | |
| 0.10.31310Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
Optimizing enteral nutrition delivery by implementing volume-based feeding protocol for critically ill patients: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review. Crit Care. Published 5 May 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →