Gastric Versus Small Bowel Feeding in Critically Ill Adults.

Abstract

Critically ill patients often require enteral feedings as a primary supply of nutrition. Whether enteral nutrition (EN) should be delivered as a gastric versus small bowel feeding in the critically ill patient population remains a contentious topic. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM)/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN), and the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines (CCPG) are not in consensus on this topic. No research to date demonstrates a significant difference between the two feeding routes in terms of patient mortality, ventilator days, or length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU); however, studies provide some evidence that there may be other benefits to using a small bowel feeding route in critically ill patients. The purpose of this paper is to examine both sides of this debate and review advantages and disadvantages of both small bowel and gastric routes of EN. Practical issues and challenges to small bowel feeding tube placement are also addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided to help guide the clinician when selecting a feeding route, and suggestions are made for future research.