To investigate the importance of route of nutrient administration on septic complications after blunt and penetrating trauma, 98 patients with an abdominal trauma index of at least 15 were randomized to either enteral or parenteral feeding within 24 hours of injury. Septic morbidity was defined as pneumonia, intra-abdominal abscess, empyema, line sepsis, or fasciitis with wound dehiscence. Patients were fed formulas with almost identical amounts of fat, carbohydrate, and protein. Two patients died early in the study. The enteral group sustained significantly fewer pneumonias (11.8% versus total parenteral nutrition 31.%, p less than 0.02), intra-abdominal abscess (1.9% versus total parenteral nutrition 13.3%, p less than 0.04), and line sepsis (1.9% versus total parenteral nutrition 13.3%, p less than 0.04), and sustained significantly fewer infections per patient (p less than 0.03), as well as significantly fewer infections per infected patient (p less than 0.05). Although there were no differences in infection rates in patients with injury severity score less than 20 or abdominal trauma index less than or equal to 24, there were significantly fewer infections in patients with an injury severity score greater than 20 (p less than 0.002) and abdominal trauma index greater than 24 (p less than 0.005). Enteral feeding produced significantly fewer infections in the penetrating group (p less than 0.05) and barely missed the statistical significance in the blunt-injured patients (p = 0.08). In the subpopulation of patients requiring more than 20 units of blood, sustaining an abdominal trauma index greater than 40 or requiring reoperation within 72 hours, there were significantly fewer infections per patient (p = 0.03) and significantly fewer infections per infected patient (p less than 0.01). There is a significantly lower incidence of septic morbidity in patients fed enterally after blunt and penetrating trauma, with most of the significant changes occurring in the more severely injured patients. The authors recommend that the surgeon obtain enteral access at the time of initial celiotomy to assure an opportunity for enteral delivery of nutrients, particularly in the most severely injured patients.
In uncontrolled studies, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV) was found useful in avoiding endotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) caused by severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). We conducted a prospective, randomized study comparing standard treatment plus NPPV delivered through a face mask to standard treatment alone in patients with severe CAP and ARF. Patients fitting the American Thoracic Society criteria for severe CAP were included in presence of ARF (refractory hypoxemia and/or hypercapnia with acidosis). Exclusion criteria were: severe hemodynamic instability, requirement for emergent cardiopulmonary resuscitation, home mechanical ventilation or oxygen long-term supplementation, concomitant severe disease with a low expectation of life, inability to expectorate or contraindications to the use of the mask. Fifty-six consecutive patients (28 in each arm) were enrolled, and the two groups were similar at study entry. The use of NPPV was well tolerated, safe, and associated with a significant reduction in respiratory rate, need for endotracheal intubation (21% versus 50%; p = 0.03), and duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (1.8 +/- 0.7 d versus 6 +/- 1.8 d; p = 0.04). The two groups had a similar intensity of nursing care workload, time interval from study entry to endotracheal intubation, duration of hospitalization, and hospital mortality. Among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), those randomized to NPPV had a lower intensity of nursing care workload (p = 0.04) and improved 2-mo survival (88.9% versus 37.5%; p = 0.05). We conclude that in selected patients with ARF caused by severe CAP, NPPV was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of endotracheal intubation and duration of ICU stay. A 2-mo survival advantage was seen in patients with COPD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.