1区 · 医学
Article
作者: Serviá-Goixart, Lluis ; van Zanten, Arthur ; Stelfox, Tom ; Calvo-Herranz, Enrique ; van Zanten, Arthur R. H. ; Wilhelmina, Canisius ; Cervera, Manuel ; Harris, M. Scott ; Garcia-Martinez, Miguel Angel ; Gonzalez, Jesus ; Heyland, Daren K. ; Raines, Ronald ; Yébenes-Reyes, Juan Carlos ; Posadas, Juan ; Klein, David J. ; Peredes, Amparo ; Fernadez-Ortega, Juan Franscisco ; Grau-Carmona, Teodoro ; Hoiting, Oscar ; Fernández-González, Inmaculada ; Jolley, Sarah ; Perez-Quesada, Sonia ; Evans, David ; Bordejé, Maria Luisa ; Perez, Aitor ; Beishuizen, Albertus ; Krell, Kenneth ; James, Joyce ; Herrero-Meseguer, Jose Ignacio ; Falls, Idaho ; Brown, Randy ; Evans, David C. ; Lorencio, Carol ; Schouten, Jeroen
PURPOSE:Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI.
METHODS:One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection.
RESULTS:One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS:Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.