Prospective randomised trial of bolus vs. continuous regime of jejunostomy feed

Abstract

Enteral alimentation can be administered continuously, cyclically, intermittently, or by a bolus technique. Current literature does not suggest superiority of any one regime. Most studies have used nasogastric feeds, little is known about the outcome of jejunal feeding.

This study compares the efficiency and safety of bolus and continuous jejunostomy feeding. 46 adults undergoing a feeding jejunostomy for nutritional support or as an adjunct to a major upper GI surgery, were randomised to bolus feeding (BF group, n = 24) and continuous feeding (CF group, n = 22). Demographic, anthropometric, and laboratory parameters were measured preoperatively and on post-operative days (POD) 3, 7, 15, and 30. These parameters; as well as nutritional and functional outcomes, and complications at POD 30; were comparable in both groups. Both groups tolerated jejunal feeds well. Bolus feeding is simple, inexpensive, and permits daily physical activities. Hence it may be preferred over continuous jejunostomy feeding for enteral alimentation.

Keywords

Enteral nutrition bolus feeding continuous feeding feeding jejunostomy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ichimaru

Amagai

. Intermittent and bolus methods of feeding in critical care. In: Diet and nutrition in critical care. Rajendram

, et al. (eds.). Springer Science+Business Media. New York, 2015: 533–548. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-7836-2_139.

Ichimaru

. Methods of enteral nutrition administration in critically Ill patients: continuous, intermittent, cyclic, and bolus feeding. Nutr Clin Pract 2018; 33: 790–795.

Campbell

Morton

Cole

, et al. A comparison of the effects of intermittent and continuous nasogastric feeding on the oxygen consumption and nitrogen balance of patients after major head and neck surgery. Am J Clin Nutr 1983; 38: 870–878.

Pichard

Roulet

. Constant rate enteral nutrition in bucco-pharyngeal cancer care. A highly efficient nutritional support system. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 1984; 9: 209–214.

Steevens

Lipscomb

Poole

, et al. Comparison of continuous vs intermittent nasogastric enteral feeding in trauma patients: perceptions and practice. Nutr Clin Pract 2002; 17: 118–122.

Serpa

Kimura

Faintuch

, et al. Effects of continuous versus bolus infusion of enteral nutrition in critical patients. Rev. Hosp. Clín. Fac. Med. S. Paulo 2003; 58: 9–14.

Chowdhury

Murray

Hoad

, et al. Effects of bolus and continuous nasogastric feeding on gastric emptying, small bowel water content, superior mesenteric artery blood flow, and plasma hormone concentrations in healthy adults: a randomized crossover study. Ann Surg 2016; 263: 450–457.

Evans

Forbes

Jones

, et al.

Continuous versus bolus tube feeds: does the modality affect glycemic variability, tube feeding volume, caloric intake, or insulin utilization?

Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2016; 6: 9–15.

MacLeod

JBA

Lefton

Houghton

, et al. Prospective randomized control trial of intermittent versus continuous gastric feeds for critically Ill trauma patients. J Trauma 2007; 63: 57–61.

10.

Yang

Zheng

. Risk assessment of intermittent and continuous nasogastric enteral feeding methods in adult inpatients: a meta-analysis. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2021; 2021: 8875002. eCollection 2021.