2020
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1650
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of early enteral nutrition on the prognosis of patients with sepsis: secondary analysis of acute gastrointestinal injury study

Abstract: Background: The time of enteral nutrition (EN) administration on patients with sepsis is controversial.The study was to explore the effect of early enteral nutrition (EEN) on the prognosis of patients with sepsis.Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of the acute gastrointestinal injury grade study. The patients were divided into two groups from the time of EN administration: EEN group (n=85): EN within 24 hours; Control group (N=78): EN after 24 hours. The key observation was the length of ICU stay, and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
(46 reference statements)
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Ortiz Reyes et al [ 27 ] reported that 60 day mortality was not significantly different between early and delayed EN groups ( Table 3 ). However, the early EN group had significantly reduced 60 day mortality (37% vs. 53%, p = 0.039) in Jiang et al [ 24 ] ( Table 3 ). ICU mortality was reported by Reignier et al [ 30 ], Ortiz Reyes et al [ 27 ], and Koga et al [ 25 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Ortiz Reyes et al [ 27 ] reported that 60 day mortality was not significantly different between early and delayed EN groups ( Table 3 ). However, the early EN group had significantly reduced 60 day mortality (37% vs. 53%, p = 0.039) in Jiang et al [ 24 ] ( Table 3 ). ICU mortality was reported by Reignier et al [ 30 ], Ortiz Reyes et al [ 27 ], and Koga et al [ 25 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…We excluded 954 duplicates, and an additional 5999 were excluded after independent screening by two authors according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, resulting in 40 studies being assessed for eligibility. Of those, 29 were excluded; 18 were excluded because they did not investigate sepsis, seven had no early EN group, two did not regard critically ill patients, and two were not published as full research articles ( Figure 1 ) [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Finally, 11 studies were included in the systematic review.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The search retrieved 3759 references, and 3086 studies were screened after duplicate removal; a total of 37 references were reviewed in full text ( Figure 1 ), 15 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ], and 22 studies were excluded because they engaged with a different population, administered a distinct intervention or comparison, or implemented a non-relevant design. The details of included and excluded studies can be found in the supplemental digital content ( Supplemental Table S2 ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At present, enteral nutrition is recommended to be started 24–48 h after the stabilization of the disease. By monitoring gastrointestinal function indicators such as gastric antrum cross-section area, colon diameter and peristalsis frequency [ 19 ]. Enteral nutrition is recommended to be started 6 h after the stabilization of the disease, when the amount of vasoactive drugs is gradually reduced.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%