Gastric Residual Volume Monitoring Research Articles

The impact of reducing the frequency of gastric residual volume monitoring on nutritional adequacy in critically ill patients

The impact of reducing the frequency of gastric residual volume monitoring on nutritional adequacy in critically ill patients

Deimplementation of Gastric Residual Volume Monitoring to Enhance Patient Nutrition.

Routine gastric residual volume monitoring remains common in nursing practice. However, current evidence supports using a focused nursing assessment to identify signs and symptoms of enteral feeding intolerance such as abdominal pain, abdominal distension, and vomiting. At the author's institution, nurses and other clinicians began reporting inconsistencies in gastric residual volume monitoring along with frequent interruptions in the delivery of enteral nutrition. The quality improvement project included patients in the medical intensive care unit receiving enteral nutrition. Gastric residual volume monitoring was eliminated. Instead, enteral nutrition was suspended on the basis of signs and symptoms of enteral feeding intolerance. Multimodal education was provided to nurses, nurse practitioners, and physicians caring for these patients. Formative evaluation occurred via staff rounds, summative evaluation occurred through a staff survey, and nutritional adequacy was evaluated by tracking patient weight. The 6-week project included 37 patients on the medical intensive care unit service. Of these patients, 28 gained weight; the mean change in weight was +6.2%. The practice change was well perceived by staff and is now an established part of care for any patient receiving enteral feedings at the study hospital. The deimplementation of routine gastric residual volume monitoring is supported by evidence. Use of a focused gastrointestinal nursing assessment to identify enteral feeding intolerance is safe, feasible, and effective and improves nutrition delivery and nurses' workflow.

Gastric residual volume monitoring practices in UK intensive care units: A web-based survey.

Monitoring of gastric residual volume (GRV) to assess for enteral feeding intolerance is common practice in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting; however, evidence to support the practice is lacking. The aim of this study was: (i) to gain a perspective of current practice in adult ICUs in the UK around enteral feeding and monitoring of GRV, (ii) to characterise the threshold value used for a high GRV in clinical practice, (iii) to describe the impact of GRV monitoring on enteral feeding provision and (iv) to inform future research into the clinical value of GRV measurement in the adult ICU population. A web-based survey was sent to all UK adult ICUs. The survey consisted of questions pertaining to (i) nutritional assessment and enteral feeding practices, (ii) enteral feeding intolerance and GRV monitoring and (iii) management of raised GRV. Responses were received from 101 units. Ninety-eight percent of units reported routinely measuring GRV, with 86% of ICUs using GRV to define enteral feeding intolerance. Threshold values for a high GRV varied from 200 to 1000 ml with frequency of measurement also differing greatly from 2 to 12 hourly. Initiation of pro-kinetic medication was the most common treatment for a high GRV. Fifty-two percent of respondents stated that volume of GRV would influence their decision to stop enteral feeds a lot or very much. Only 28% of units stated that they had guidelines for the technique for monitoring GRV. Measurement of GRV is the most common method of determining enteral feeding intolerance in adult ICUs in the UK. The practice continues despite evidence of poor validity and reproducibility of this measurement. Further research should be undertaken into the benefit of ongoing GRV measurements in the adult ICU population and alternative markers of enteral feeding intolerance.

Effects of ultrasound monitoring of gastric residual volume on feeding complications, caloric intake and prognosis of patients with severe mechanical ventilation.

Monitoring of gastric residual is an important approach for assessing gastric emptying in patients with mechanical ventilation. By monitoring gastric contents, the enteral nutrition scheme can be adjusted in time to ensure feeding safety. To investigate the effects of ultrasound monitoring on the incidence of feeding complications, daily caloric intake and prognosis of patients with severe mechanical ventilation. To analyze the clinical significance of ultrasound monitoring of gastric residual volume (GRV) up to 250 mL to provide a theoretical basis for clinical practice. Patients admitted to the department of emergency medicine of the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University from January 2018 to June 2022 who received invasive mechanical ventilation and continuous enteral nutrition support within 24-48 h after admission were enrolled in this study. Medical records for patients within 7 d of hospitalization were retrospectively analyzed to compare the incidence of feeding complications, daily caloric intake and clinical prognosis between patients with gastric residual ≥ 250 mL and < 250 mL, as monitored by ultrasound on the third day. A total of 513 patients were enrolled in this study. Incidences of abdominal distension, diarrhea, and vomiting in the < 250 mL and ≥ 250 mL groups were: 18.4% vs 21.0%, 23.9% vs 32.3% and 4.0% vs 6.5%, respectively; mortality rates were 20.8% vs 22.65%; mechanical ventilation durations were 18.30 d vs 17.56 d while lengths of stay in the intensive care units (ICU) were 19.87 d vs 19.19 ± 5.19 d. Differences in the above factors between groups were not significant. Gastric residual ≥ 250 mL was not an independent risk factor for death and prolonged ICU stay. However, target feeding time of patients in the ≥ 250 mL group was longer than that of patients in the ≥ 250 mL group, and caloric intake (22.0, 23.6, 24.8, 25.3 kcal/kg/d) for patients in the ≥ 250 mL group from the 4th day to the 7th day of hospitalization was lower than that of patients in the ≥ 250 mL group (23.2, 24.8, 25.7, 25.8 kcal/kg/d). On the 4th day (Z = 4.324, P = 0.013), on the 5th day (Z = 3.376, P = 0.033), while on the 6th day (Z = 3.098, P = 0.04), the differences were statistically significant. The use of ultrasound to monitor GRV and undertaking clinical interventions when the monitoring value is ≥ 250 mL has no significant effects on incidences of feeding complications and clinical prognostic outcomes, however, it significantly prolongs the time to reach target feeding, reduces the daily intake of calories during ICU hospitalization, and increases the risk of insufficient nutrition of patients. The accuracy and necessity of monitoring gastric remnants and monitoring frequencies should be investigated further.

Is monitoring of gastric residual volume for critically ill patients with enteral nutrition necessary? A meta-analysis and systematic review.

There are many controversies over the necessity of monitoring gastric residual volume in the nursing care of enteral nutrition. We aimed to conduct an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of monitoring or not monitoring gastric residual volume on patients' outcomes and complications. We searched the Cochrane Library database to 15 April 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of gastric residual volume and no gastric residual volume monitoring. Review Manager software was used for data analysis. A total of seven RCTs involving 1240 enteral nutritionpatients were included. Gastric residual volume monitoring was associated with reduced incidence of vomiting (OR2.33, 95% CI:1.68-3.24), whereas no gastric residual volume monitoring was associated with reduced incidence of unnecessary interruptions of enteral nutrition (OR0.38,95% CI:0.26-0.55). There were no significant differences on the incidence of abdominal distention (OR1.87, 95% CI:0.82-4.28), diarrhoea (OR1.03,95% CI:0.74-1.43), VAP (OR0.83, 95%CI:0.37-1.89), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.06,95% CI:-1.22-1.10), length of ICU stay (MD -1.33, 95% CI:-3.58-0.91) and mortality (OR0.90,95% CI:0.61-1.34). Not monitoring gastric residual volume is associated with reduced unnecessary interruptions of enteral nutrition related to inadequate feeding and increased risk of vomiting.

How do different protocols for monitoring of gastric residual volume compare in people receiving enteral nutrition?

How do different protocols for monitoring of gastric residual volume compare in people receiving enteral nutrition?

Using Nurse-Driven Protocols to Eliminate Routine Gastric Residual Volume Measurements: A Retrospective Study.

Multiple critical care guidelines support the elimination of routine gastric residual volume monitoring in patients receiving enteral nutrition. However, transitioning nursing practice away from routine gastric residual volume assessments has proved challenging. To evaluate outcomes after the elimination of routine gastric residual volume monitoring in a 14-bed adult intensive care unit at a large teaching hospital in the southeastern United States. Practice change was accomplished through in-service training and implementation of a validated protocol. Data were collected for 30 days before and 30 days after protocol implementation to determine effects on the total volume of enteral nutrition received as well as the rate of adverse events after elimination of routine gastric residual volume assessments (n = 22) as compared with previous standard practice (n = 25). When gastric residual volume was not measured, the mean (SD) percentage of enteral nutrition delivery was 81% (12%) of the ordered volume, compared with 60% (18%) in the historic control group (P = .002). Eliminating gastric residual volume monitoring was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events (emesis, aspiration pneumonia) or a change in length of stay. Nursing staff demonstrated a high degree of compliance with this protocol change. The findings of this study indicate that the elimination of routine gastric residual volume assessment does not increase the rate of adverse events and results in increased nutrition provision. Use of a protocol for practice change as well as mandatory in-service training may effect changes in nursing practice.

Enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: routine monitoring gastric residual volume or not

Gastric residual volume (GRV) has been widely used in clinical practice for a long time as an essential indicator of gastrointestinal motility and enteral nutrition tolerance. Recent studies have questioned the rationality of monitoring GRV routinely in critically ill patients. A "one size fits all" principle is not an optimal solution in the clinical practice of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients because of the huge heterogeneity of the intensive care unit (ICU) population. Each method of monitoring GRV has advantages and disadvantages. With the widespread clinical application of harmless monitoring technologies such as ultrasound, the gastric suctioning method maybe used less and less. The management of enteral nutrition focuses on identifying the factors and triggers of gastric retention, attempting to solve them from the perspective of prevention and elimination of high-risk factors for aspiration and analysis of pathophysiological mechanisms, eliminating all negative hindering factors, and actively promoting the concept of "creating conditions for enteral nutrition". As a critical nutrition management team, it is necessary to pay attention to the continuous improvement of enteral nutrition management culture and rationally use diversified management strategies, which may be more important than monitoring GRV.

Monitoring of gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition.

The main goal of enteral nutrition (EN) is to manage malnutrition in order to improve clinical outcomes. However, EN may increase the risks of vomiting or aspiration pneumonia during gastrointestinal dysfunction. Consequently, monitoring of gastric residual volume (GRV), that is, to measure GRV periodically and modulate the speed of enteral feeding according to GRV, has been recommended as a management goal in many intensive care units. Yet, there is a lack of robust evidence that GRV monitoring reduces the level of complications during EN. The best protocol of GRV monitoring is currently unknown, and thus the precise efficacy and safety profiles of GRV monitoring remain to be ascertained. To investigate the efficacy and safety of GRV monitoring during EN. We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for relevant studies on 3 May 2021. We also checked reference lists of included studies for additional information and contacted experts in the field. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), randomized cross-over trials, and cluster-RCTs investigating the effects of GRV monitoring during EN. We imposed no restrictions on the language of publication. Two review authors independently screened the search results for eligible studies and extracted trial-level information from each included study, including methodology and design, characteristics of study participants, interventions, and outcome measures. We assessed risk of bias for each study using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We followed guidance from the GRADE framework to assess the overall certainty of evidence across outcomes. We used a random-effects analytical model to perform quantitative synthesis of the evidence. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous and mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We included eight studies involving 1585 participants. All studies were RCTs conducted in ICU settings. Two studies (417 participants) compared less-frequent (less than eight hours) monitoring of GRV against a regimen of more-frequent (eight hours or greater) monitoring. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of frequent monitoring of GRV on mortality rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.37; I² = 8%; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.83; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD 2.00 days, 95% CI -2.15 to 6.15; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of vomiting (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.09; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (500 participants) compared no GRV monitoring with frequent (12 hours or less) monitoring. Similarly, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of no monitoring of GRV on mortality rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.53 days, 95% CI -4.47 to 1.40; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of vomiting (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). One study (322 participants) assessed the impact of GRV threshold (500 mL per six hours) on clinical outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the threshold for GRV at time of aspiration on mortality rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.38; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.90 days, 95% CI -2.60 to 4.40; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (140 participants) explored the effects of returning or discarding the aspirated/drained GRV. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of discarding or returning the aspirated/drained GRV on the incidence of vomiting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.63; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence) and volume aspirated from the stomach (MD -7.30 mL, 95% CI -26.67 to 12.06, I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) We found no studies comparing the effects of protocol-based EN strategies that included GRV-related criteria against strategies that did not include such criteria. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GRV on clinical outcomes including mortality, pneumonia, vomiting, and length of hospital stay.

Effect of high gastric residual volume on the critically ill patients' outcomes

Abstract Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is a danger for critically sick patients who receive mechanical breathing. During the course of enteral feeding in the early stages of critical illness, gastric residual volume (GRV) is used as a surrogate metric for GI dysfunction. This study aimed to investigate the effect of high gastric residual volume on critically ill patient outcomes. Design: A prospective, observational research design. Methods: A purposive sample of 60 adult critically ill patients of both sex from the intensive care units (ICUs) at Assiut University Hospital, Egypt were included in the study from August 2020 to April 2021. According to the measurement of gastric residual volume, those patients were not randomly allocated in group 1[the normal limit of gastric residual volume (NGRV) 500]. Five tools were used to collect data included patient's assessment tool, APACHE 11 score, nutritional intervention assessment tool, gastric residual volume assessment tool, and Patient outcomes assessment tools. Results: there was a significant decrease in the Length of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality rate in NGRV group than the HGRV group (11.04±4.12 versus 13.91±5.88, 8.43± 4.5 versus 13.02 ±5.04, 30.4% versus 70.3%) respectively. Conclusion: HGRV had an adverse effect on critically ill patients' outcomes such as high ICU mortality, long duration of mechanical ventilation and long ICU stay. Recommendation: Frequent monitoring of gastric residual volume and gastric residual volume protocol and guidelines should be applied in ICU.

CE: Monitoring Adult Patients for Intolerance to Gastric Tube Feedings.

Gastric tube feeding is a common and valuable intervention for patients in a variety of care settings. While tube feeding can save the lives of patients for whom oral feeding isn't possible, intolerance to tube feeding is a potential complication. This article discusses risk factors for feeding intolerance; the assessment of signs and symptoms of feeding intolerance; the various means of assessing gastric emptying, including the practice of monitoring gastric residual volume (GRV); the controversy surrounding GRV monitoring in assessing feeding tolerance; and the special considerations for monitoring feeding tolerance in acutely and critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019. The author, a nurse researcher with extensive experience in the area of enteral feeding, briefly summarizes recommendations and guidelines for enteral feeding published by national and international health care organizations between 2015 and 2020, and offers her perspective on best nursing practices for monitoring food tolerance in adults.

Nutrition management for critically and acutely unwell hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Australia and New Zealand.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) results from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). The clinical features and subsequent medical treatment, combined with the impact of a global pandemic, require specific nutritional therapy in hospitalised adults. This document aims to provide Australian and New Zealand clinicians with guidance on managing critically and acutely unwell adult patients hospitalised with COVID‐19. These recommendations were developed using expert consensus, incorporating the documented clinical signs and metabolic processes associated with COVID‐19, the literature from other respiratory illnesses, in particular acute respiratory distress syndrome, and published guidelines for medical management of COVID‐19 and general nutrition and intensive care. Patients hospitalised with COVID‐19 are likely to have preexisting comorbidities, and the ensuing inflammatory response may result in increased metabolic demands, protein catabolism, and poor glycaemic control. Common medical interventions, including deep sedation, early mechanical ventilation, fluid restriction, and management in the prone position, may exacerbate gastrointestinal dysfunction and affect nutritional intake. Nutrition care should be tailored to pandemic capacity, with early gastric feeding commenced using an algorithm to provide nutrition for the first 5–7 days in lower‐nutritional‐risk patients and individualised care for high‐nutritional‐risk patients where capacity allows. Indirect calorimetry should be avoided owing to potential aerosol exposure and therefore infection risk to healthcare providers. Use of a volume‐controlled, higher‐protein enteral formula and gastric residual volume monitoring should be initiated. Careful monitoring, particularly after intensive care unit stay, is required to ensure appropriate nutrition delivery to prevent muscle deconditioning and aid recovery. The infectious nature of SARS‐CoV‐2 and the expected high volume of patient admissions will require contingency planning to optimise staffing resources including upskilling, ensure adequate nutrition supplies, facilitate remote consultations, and optimise food service management. These guidelines provide recommendations on how to manage the aforementioned aspects when providing nutrition support to patients during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic.

Nutrition management for critically and acutely unwell hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Australia and New Zealand

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) results from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The clinical features and subsequent medical treatment, combined with the impact of a global pandemic, require specific nutritional therapy in hospitalised adults. This document aims to provide Australian and New Zealand clinicians with guidance on managing critically and acutely unwell adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. These recommendations were developed using expert consensus, incorporating the documented clinical signs and metabolic processes associated with COVID-19, the literature from other respiratory illnesses, in particular acute respiratory distress syndrome, and published guidelines for medical management of COVID-19 and general nutrition and intensive care. Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are likely to have preexisting comorbidities, and the ensuing inflammatory response may result in increased metabolic demands, protein catabolism, and poor glycaemic control. Common medical interventions, including deep sedation, early mechanical ventilation, fluid restriction, and management in the prone position, may exacerbate gastrointestinal dysfunction and affect nutritional intake. Nutrition care should be tailored to pandemic capacity, with early gastric feeding commenced using an algorithm to provide nutrition for the first 5–7 days in lower-nutritional-risk patients and individualised care for high-nutritional-risk patients where capacity allows. Indirect calorimetry should be avoided owing to potential aerosole exposure and therefore infection risk to healthcare providers. Use of a volume-controlled, higher-protein enteral formula and gastric residual volume monitoring should be initiated. Careful monitoring, particularly after intensive care unit stay, is required to ensure appropriate nutrition delivery to prevent muscle deconditioning and aid recovery. The infectious nature of SARS-CoV-2 and the expected high volume of patient admissions will require contingency planning to optimise staffing resources including upskilling, ensure adequate nutrition supplies, facilitate remote consultations, and optimise food service management. These guidelines provide recommendations on how to manage the aforementioned aspects when providing nutrition support to patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

It’s in the Bag? The Effect of Plastic Carryout Bag Bans on Where and What People Purchase to Eat

Abstract Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) results from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The clinical features and subsequent medical treatment, combined with the impact of a global pandemic, require specific nutritional therapy in hospitalised adults. This document aims to provide Australian and New Zealand clinicians with guidance on managing critically and acutely unwell adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. These recommendations were developed using expert consensus, incorporating the documented clinical signs and metabolic processes associated with COVID-19, the literature from other respiratory illnesses, in particular Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and published guidelines for medical management of COVID-19 and general nutrition and intensive care. Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are likely to have pre-existing comorbidities, and the ensuing inflammatory response may result in increased metabolic demands, protein catabolism, and poor glycaemic control. Common medical interventions, including deep sedation, early mechanical ventilation, fluid restriction, and management in the prone position, may exacerbate gastrointestinal dysfunction and effect nutritional intake. Nutrition care should be tailored to pandemic capacity, with early gastric feeding commenced using an algorithm to provide nutrition for the first 5-7 days in lower nutritional risk patients, and individualised care for high nutritional risk patients where capacity allows. Indirect calorimetry should be avoided due to potential aerosole exposure and therefore infection risk to health care providers. Use of a volume-controlled, higher-protein enteral formula and gastric residual volume monitoring should be initiated. Careful monitoring, particularly post-ICU, is required to ensure appropriate nutrition delivery to prevent muscle deconditioning and aid recovery. The infectious nature of SARS-CoV-2 and the expected high volume of patient admissions will require contingency planning to optimise staffing resources including up-skilling, ensure adequate nutrition supplies, facilitate remote consultations and optimise foodservice management. These guidelines provide recommendations on how to manage the above aspects when providing nutrition support to patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Elimination of Routine Gastric Residual Volume Monitoring Improves Patient Outcomes in Adult Critically Ill Patients in a Community Hospital Setting.

A community hospital updated its nutrition support practices in 2016 through the elimination of monitoring gastric residual volume (GRV) in accordance with the 2016 Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. This retrospective analysis (N=61) compared incidence of feeding intolerance in 2 cohorts of adult critically ill patients pre-implementation (n=36) and post-implementation (n=25) of these guidelines into a nutrition support team's standard of practice policy. Differences in kilocalories and protein (gm) received and percent of daily prescribed kilocalories and protein received were also compared between the 2 cohorts. Mean episodes of gastrointestinal intolerance over the number of eligible days of receiving enteral nutrition in the critical care unit did not differ between the pre-implementation and post-implementation groups (P= 0.46). Compared with the pre-implementation group, the post-guideline implementation cohort was significantly more likely to meet higher percentages of both prescribed protein (71.8±22.2% vs 55.9±24.0%; P= 0.01) and energy requirements (93.4±36.9% vs 69.6±35.3%; P= 0.01), even after adjusting for potential confounders (age, body mass index, sex, and primary comorbid medical condition). Elimination of routine monitoring of GRV may result in a greater percentage of prescribed daily nutrient requirements met by patients in the critical care setting, without adverse effects on feeding intolerance.

Effect of gastric residual volume monitoring on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to intensive care unit.

Objectives:The value of gastric residual volume (GRV) monitoring in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has frequently been questioned in the past years. In this trial, the effect of GRV on the frequency of VAP was evaluated in critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation.Methods:This descriptive study was carried out on 150 adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit over a 14-month period, from October 2015 to January 2017. GRV was measured every three hours, and gastric intolerance was defined as GRV>250 cc. The incidence of vomiting and VAP, GRV, length of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, APACHE II and SOFA scores, and mortality rate were noted.Results:The mean APACHEII and SOFA scores, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation in the GRV>250ml group were significantly higher than in the GRV≤250 ml group (P<0.05). Also, a significantly higher number of patients in the GRV>250ml group experienced infection (62.3%) and vomiting (71.7%) compared with the GRV≤250 group (P<0.01). The highest OR was observed for SOFA score >15 and APACHE II >30, which increased the risk of GVR>250 ml by 10.09 (1.01-99.97) and 8.78 (1.49-51.58), respectively. Moreover, the increase in GVR was found to be higher in the non-survivor than in the survivor group.Conclusion:Increased GRV did not result in increased rates of VAP, ICU length of stay, and mortality. Therefore, the routine measurement of GRV as an important element of the VAP prevention bundle is not recommended in critically ill patients.

Effect of gastric residual volume monitoring on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to intensive care unit

Objectives: The value of gastric residual volume (GRV) monitoring in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) has frequently been questioned in the past years. In this trial, the effect of GRV on the frequency of VAP was evaluated in critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation.&#x0D; Methods: This descriptive study was carried out on 150 adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit over a 14-month period, from October 2015 to January 2017. GRV was measured every three hours, and gastric intolerance was defined as GRV&gt;250 cc. The incidence of vomiting and VAP, GRV, length of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, APACHE II and SOFA scores, and mortality rate were noted.&#x0D; Results: The mean APACHEII and SOFA scores, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation in the GRV&gt;250ml group were significantly higher than in the GRV≤250 ml group (P&lt;0.05). Also, a significantly higher number of patients in the GRV&gt;250ml group experienced infection (62.3%) and vomiting (71.7%) compared with the GRV≤250 group (P&lt;0.01). The highest OR was observed for SOFA score &gt;15 and APACHE II &gt;30, which increased the risk of GVR&gt;250 ml by 10.09 (1.01-99.97) and 8.78 (1.49-51.58), respectively. Moreover, the increase in GVR was found to be higher in the non-survivor than in the survivor group.&#x0D; Conclusion: Increased GRV did not result in increased rates of VAP, ICU length of stay, and mortality. Therefore, the routine measurement of GRV as an important element of the VAP prevention bundle is not recommended in critically ill patients.&#x0D; How to cite this:&#x0D; Faramarzi E, Mahmoodpoor A, Hamishehkar H, Shadvar K, Iranpour A, Sabzevari T, et al. Effect of gastric residual volume monitoring on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients admitted to intensive care unit. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(1):---------. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.1.1321&#x0D; This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Feeding effect of not monitoring gastric residual volume in ICU patients receiving continuous enteral feeding: a Meta-analysis

Objective To evaluate the feeding effect of not monitoring gastric residual volume in ICU patients receiving continuous enteral feeding,including complications and calorie intake. Methods We searched for relevant studies in China national knowledge internet(CNKI), Wanfang Data, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library. We included all Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and pre-post studies related to the feeding effect of not monitoring gastric residual volume in ICU patients receiving continuous enteral feeding. Two researchers independently screened, appraised and extracted data, and meta-analysis was conducted via RevMan 5.3 software. Results 3 RCTs and 2 pre-post studies with 1 000 patients were included. Not monitoring gastric residual volume increase the rate of vomiting [OR=1.35, 95%CI(1.02, 1.80), Z=2.08, P=0.04], decrease the proportion of intolerance to enteral nutrition [OR=0.35, 95%CI(0.26, 0.46), Z=7.29, P<0.01], there were no significant differences in diarrhea [OR=1.14, 95%CI(0.78, 1.67), Z=0.67, P=0.51] and distention[OR=1.24, 95%CI(0.76, 2.03), Z=0.87, P=0.38]. The cumulative calorie deficit between targeted volume and provided volume in not monitoring gastric residual volume group was significantly lower than the control group[MD=-0.29, 95%CI(-0.47, -0.11), Z=3.23, P=0.001], daily provided calorie amount was also significantly higher than the control group [MD=0.35, 95%CI(0.10, 0.59), Z=2.75, P=0.006]. Conclusions Not monitoring gastric residual volume in ICU patients increase calorie intake and have better enteral nutrition provision, decrease the proportion of intolerance to enteral nutrition. Monitoring gastric residual volume should not be taken as a routine task in critical care nursing. Key words: Not monitoring; gastric residual volume; Enteral nutrition; Intensive care units; Meta-analysis

Application of bedside ultrasound monitoring of gastric residual volume in ICU patients complicated with enteral nutrition support via nasogastric tube

Objective To discuss the application of bedside ultrasound monitoring of gastric residual volume in ICU patients complicated with enteral nutrition support via nasogastric tube. Methods November 2017 to May 2018, 120 patients with enteral nutrition support via nasogastric tube who admitted in ICU of our hospital were randomly divided into the observation group and the control group. The observation group used bedside ultrasound monitoring to determine the gastric residual volume, while the control group was estimated by withdrawn with 50 ml syringe. Reflux, pulmonary aspiration and the time of enteral nutrition were observed in both groups. Results Reflux and pulmonary aspiration were present in 2, 3 in the observation group and 10, 11 in the control group, with significant difference between them (χ2=4.53, 3.96, P<0.05). The time of enteral nutrition in the observation group was (13.98±3.20) h, and (15.54±3.54) h in the control group, which had a statistically difference (t=-10.49, P<0.05). Conclusion The application of bedside ultrasound monitoring of gastric residual volume in ICU patients complicated with enteral nutrition support via nasogastric tube can significantly reduce the risk of reflux and pulmonary aspiration which can ensure the safety of enteral nutrition, and decrease time of enteral nutrition. Key words: Ultrasound; Gastric residual volume; Enteral nutrition

Monitoring of gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition

Monitoring of gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition