Peptide-based enteral formula improves tolerance and clinical outcomes in abdominal surgery patients relative to a whole protein enteral formula.

Abstract

AIMTo compare a dipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formula with a standard enteral formula for tolerance and nutritional outcomes in abdominal surgery patients.METHODSA retrospective study was performed to assess the differences between a whole-protein formula (WPF) and a dipeptide- and tripeptide-based formula (PEF) in clinical outcomes. Seventy-two adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with serum albumin concentrations less than 3.0 g/dL were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups (WPF group = 40 patients, PEF group = 32 patients). The study patients were fed for at least 7 d, with ≥ 1000 mL of enteral formula infused on at least 3 of the days.RESULTSThe mean serum albumin level on postoperative day (POD) 10, prealbumin levels on POD-5 and POD-10, and total lymphocyte count on POD-5 were significantly higher in the PEF group compared to those in the WPF group (P < 0.05). The average maximum gastric residual volume of the PEF patients during their ICU stays was significantly lower than that for WPF patients.CONCLUSIONDipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formulas are more efficacious and better tolerated than whole-protein formulas.