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.

Background: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the most common gastrointestinal disorder that have considerable psychological features.

Background:A suitable sedative status during gastro-enteric endoscopies results in better physicians’ approach and more stable view of internal organs. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of ketamine for sedation in endoscopic procedures of adult patients.Materials and Methods:Patients who were candidates for gastro-enteric endoscopy during the years 2014-2015 were included into the study and divided into two groups of case (administered 5 mg/kg of oral ketamine half an hour before initiation of the procedure) and control (administered placebo in a same pattern). After endoscopy, patients and physicians’ satisfaction of sedation was assessed. SPSS-22 was used for data analysis.Results:Eighty-six patients participated into the study of which divided into each groups. The pain and discomfort scores were 2.4 ± 1.8 and 5.81 ± 1.48 in case and control groups, respectively, (P < 0.001). Mann-Whitney test revealed statistical difference among groups about physician's satisfaction of sedation during endoscopy (P < 0.001). Patients who received ketamine had better sedative status (P < 0.001). None of the patients in the case group was completely awake but all of the patients in the control group were awake. The number of retching during endoscopy showed that individuals in the control group had more frequent retching episodes (P = 0.04).Conclusion:Low-dose oral administration of ketamine could make a satisfied sedation for gastro-enteric endoscopy.