ライフサイエンスコーパス: enteral nutrition

1 ted energy requirement that was delivered as enteral nutrition.

2 unal nutrition would improve the delivery of enteral nutrition.

3 cations that may impede adequate delivery of enteral nutrition.

4 , could facilitate earlier and more complete enteral nutrition.

5 cquired pneumonia, mortality, and the use of enteral nutrition.

6 the subgroup of patients who did not receive enteral nutrition.

7 matic approaches to treating diarrhea during enteral nutrition.

8 cer prophylaxis and the moderating effect of enteral nutrition.

9 d to develop 'best practice' guidelines with enteral nutrition.

10 d among a subgroup of patients ordered early enteral nutrition.

11 differ substantially between parenteral and enteral nutrition.

12 er outcomes than controls receiving standard enteral nutrition.

13 ating the benefit of the early initiation of enteral nutrition.

14 after severe injury, hampering tolerance to enteral nutrition.

15 n the incidence of VAP in SI compared with G enteral nutrition.

16 method allows prompt and safe initiation of enteral nutrition.

17 and the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.

18 uodenum allows prompt and safe initiation of enteral nutrition.

19 utrition and who had no contraindications to enteral nutrition.

20 se receiving isonitrogenous diet or no early enteral nutrition.

21 omy tube placement and initiation of jejunal enteral nutrition.

22 itically ill patients anticipated to receive enteral nutrition.

23 commonly used in preterm infants to provide enteral nutrition.

24 rly food reintroduction, following exclusive enteral nutrition.

25 are frequently placed in patients to provide enteral nutrition.

26 died critically ill patients receiving early enteral nutrition.

27 initial hypocaloric-hyponitrogenous dose of enteral nutrition.

28 ng minimal enteral feeds versus full caloric enteral nutrition.

29 with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis receiving enteral nutrition.

30 malabsorptive diarrhea upon ingestion of any enteral nutrition.

31 t common myths and misconceptions related to enteral nutrition.

32 and who were already receiving percutaneous enteral nutrition.

33 Animals were fasted or received lipid-rich enteral nutrition.

34 pneumonia (VAP) in patients receiving early enteral nutrition.

35 A total of 985 subjects received enteral nutrition, 354 (36%) of whom received enteral nu

36 Both groups received similar durations of enteral nutrition (5.5 vs. 5.1 days; p = .51).

37 Rats given continuous enteral nutrition 7 days before and for 3 days after isc

38 is a common and problematic complication of enteral nutrition, about which there has been considerab

39 Enteral nutrition access can be obtained by a variety of

40 ination activities, there was an increase in enteral nutrition adequacy (from 43% to 50%, p < .001),

41 Changes in enteral nutrition adequacy between the active and passiv

42 In the subgroup of medical patients, enteral nutrition adequacy improved more in the active a

43 ealth Evaluation II score >or=16) tolerating enteral nutrition administered by gastric tube (NG) for

44 on has a deleterious effect in comparison to enteral nutrition alone.

45 Achieving adequate enteral nutrition among mechanically ventilated patients

46 ory oscillations for the cases of continuous enteral nutrition and constant glucose infusion.

47 djunctive to medical treatment, facilitating enteral nutrition and decompression by means of jejunost

48 izing feeding practices improves delivery of enteral nutrition and decreases feeding complications.

49 ment of the feeding tube and the infusion of enteral nutrition and defined the radiographic and clini

50 s or facial trauma or fractures who received enteral nutrition and either had removed or were at risk

51 PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Adequate enteral nutrition and growth are vital to recovery and s

52 9 months postsurgery, the patient is on full enteral nutrition and has suffered neither technical com

53 Controlled studies of patients receiving enteral nutrition and observations made from patients on

54 T) and upper respiratory tract immunity with enteral nutrition and provide further information defini

55 Finally, large reviews of enteral nutrition and their efficacy for specific diseas

56 ly reviews the mechanisms of diarrhea during enteral nutrition and then critically appraises the rece

57 might benefit from early intensive therapy, enteral nutrition and timely transfer to specialized cen

58 in 7 of the 22 when all were receiving some enteral nutrition and were free of rejection.

59 ntrolled trials comparing early with delayed enteral nutrition and were included for data extraction.

60 nd renal biochemistry who were not receiving enteral nutrition and who had no contraindications to en

61 Approaches to prevent diarrhea during enteral nutrition, and a clinical algorithm to manage it

62 ound closure, metabolic interventions, early enteral nutrition, and intensive glucose control have le

63 and aggressive fluid resuscitation and early enteral nutrition are associated with lower rates of mor

64 Complications associated with enteral nutrition are minor and easily controlled when m

65 Critical to realizing increasing benefits of enteral nutrition are techniques for feeding tube placem

66 in English using the search terms "human," "enteral nutrition," "arginine," "nucleotides," "omega-3

67 defecation was significantly shorter in the enteral nutrition arm than in the control arm (P = 0.04)

68 We compared the impact of administering enteral nutrition as either gastric feeding or jejunal f

69 tudy expands the immunomodulating effects of enteral nutrition as previously observed in rodents to m

70 se similar remission rates are achieved with enteral nutrition as with steroids.

71 CN), The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), and the Chair of the Institut

72 ntilation whose physicians intended to start enteral nutrition at 44 hospitals in the National Heart,

73 ntilation whose physicians intended to start enteral nutrition at 44 hospitals in the National Heart,

74 atients (>60%TBSA burns) received continuous enteral nutrition at a spectrum of caloric balance betwe

75 ailure similar to those of early full-energy enteral nutrition but with fewer episodes of gastrointes

76 When oral nutrition is not feasible, enteral nutrition by either nasogastric/duodenal or naso

77 evidence suggests that improving adequacy of enteral nutrition by moving intake closer to goal calori

78 These data suggest that total enteral nutrition can be safely administered for nutriti

79 average time from ICU admission to start of enteral nutrition compared to the control group (40.7-29

80 led trials comparing early aggressive use of enteral nutrition compared with delayed, less aggressive

81 an (SD) percentage daily nutritional intake (enteral nutrition) compared to prescribed goals was 38%

82 ase of critical illness have found full-dose enteral nutrition, compared with restrictive dose, and m

83 Enteral nutrition continues as a highly used medical the

84 pithelium was performed in mice given either enteral nutrition (Control) or intravenous nutrition (TP

85 Early combined parenteral/enteral nutrition delayed recovery irrespective of sever

86 al feed intolerance is associated with lower enteral nutrition delivery and worse clinical outcomes.

87 al feed intolerance occurs frequently during enteral nutrition delivery in the critically ill.

88 oved clinical outcomes compared with delayed enteral nutrition (DEN), prioritizing associations adjus

89 A fiber-free exclusive enteral nutrition diet also induces mucus erosion but in

90 Enteral nutrition, directed by a protocol, was delivered

91 rition, either instead of or supplemental to enteral nutrition, does not offer additional benefits.

92 orary randomized controlled trials comparing enteral nutrition doses during the acute phase of critic

93 he remaining 13 patients were provided total enteral nutrition during ECMO.

94 immunomodulatory potential of a custom-made enteral nutrition during systemic inflammation in man.

95 ary data support the use of restrictive dose enteral nutrition during the acute phase of critical ill

96 ales, 6 females, age 54.9 +/- 3.3 yrs) or no enteral nutrition during the first 4 days of admission (

97 ation) preoperatively into two groups: early enteral nutrition (early enteral nutrition, intervention

98 artial enteral nutrition (PEN) and exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) both induce remission in pediatr

99 A nutritional intervention, exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) can induce remission in patients

100 gent diets, vegan, omnivore, and a synthetic enteral nutrition (EEN) diet lacking fiber, on the human

101 CD in 2010 and 2011 who commenced exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) for 8 weeks were followed up for

102 Predicting response to exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) in active Crohn's disease (CD) c

103 Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is a first-line therapy for pedi

104 Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is recommended for children with

105 Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is the only established dietary

106 iology of Crohn's Disease (CD) and exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) is the primary induction treatme

107 Exclusive enteral nutrition (EEN) with fiber-free diets is an effe

108 dy was designed to investigate whether early enteral nutrition (EEN), as a bridge to a normal diet, c

109 Guidelines recommend implementing early enteral nutrition (EN) (EEN) in critically ill children.

110 nutrition (PN) is still widely preferred to enteral nutrition (EN) in malnourished patients undergoi

111 Us) with relative contraindications to early enteral nutrition (EN) may benefit from parenteral nutri

112 Enteral nutrition (EN) was advanced and PN weaned as ind

113 lled trial (RCT) hypothesized that prolonged enteral nutrition (EN) with supplemental eicosapentanoic

114 Guidelines recommend enteral nutrition (EN) within 48 h of admission to the m

115 cal/mL) compared with standard (1.0 kcal/mL) enteral nutrition (EN), warranting further exploration.

116 High-protein enteral nutrition enriched with immune-modulating nutrie

117 gnificant increase in the ratios of received enteral nutrition feed volume, calories, and protein aft

118 and no clear disadvantage of providing early enteral nutrition following elective gastrointestinal su

119 ally ventilated patients expected to receive enteral nutrition for >/=2 d were randomly assigned to r

120 ulse in adult male rats fed ethanol by total enteral nutrition for 21-30 days.

121 The group suggested exclusive enteral nutrition for induction therapy and biologic tum

122 ilated for more than 72 hours and to require enteral nutrition for more than 72 hours were randomized

123 stomy (PEG) is an effective and safe mode of enteral nutrition for patients needing chronic enteric n

124 DPEJ is an effective method of providing enteral nutrition for patients when percutaneous endosco

125 er initial trophic (10 mL/hr) or full-energy enteral nutrition for the initial 6 days of ventilation.

126 estinal bleeding regardless of the volume of enteral nutrition (for 500 ml/d: HR, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.22

127 tion of new organ failures suggest that this enteral nutrition formula would be a useful adjuvant the

128 cedure for the multielement determination in enteral nutrition formulations employing slurry sampling

129 recruited critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition from 8 intensive care units (ICUs) in

130 of ethanol-containing diets as part of total enteral nutrition generates well defined 6-day cycles (p

131 r fields in the parenteral compared with the enteral nutrition group (50 [four to 85] vs. three [0 to

132 ity: 44.4% of patients died in the intensive enteral nutrition group (95% confidence interval [CI], 3

133 In the intensive enteral nutrition group, enteral nutrition was given via

134 r group was defined as the successful "early enteral nutrition" group.

135 Delay in initiating enteral nutrition has been reported to disrupt intestina

136 In acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition has been shown to be safe and effectiv

137 h IBD with severe malnutrition when oral and enteral nutrition has been trialed and failed or when en

138 Also, low-dose or trophic enteral nutrition has similar benefits with less gastroi

139 ms responsible for the beneficial effects of enteral nutrition have remained a mystery.

140 Home enteral nutrition (HEN) has always been recognized as a

141 Enteral nutrition, however, does not appear better than

142 (1-5 g/kg/day) (GA group, n=7) or a standard enteral nutrition (HP group, n=10).

143 In this study the use of home parenteral and enteral nutrition (HPEN) therapy in geriatric patients a

144 associated with LAM included failure to use enteral nutrition (HR 13.22, CI 1.8-96.8) and era in whi

145 prazole (HR, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.25, 0.54]) and enteral nutrition (HR, 0.81 [95% CI = 0.68, 0.97]) for e

146 ml/d: HR, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.22, 0.58]; for no enteral nutrition: HR, 0.36 [95% CI = 0.18, 0.72]).

147 comes in patients is unclear when 2 types of enteral nutrition, ie, tube feeding and conventional ora

148 prospect of eventual gut adaptation to full enteral nutrition if it were not for their advanced live

149 l, the Early Parenteral Nutrition Completing Enteral Nutrition in Adult Critically Ill Patients (EPaN

150 trial (Early Parenteral Nutrition Completing Enteral Nutrition in Adult Critically Ill Patients [EPaN

151 Early enteral nutrition in burn patients blunts the hypermetab

152 is a safe technique for providing long-term enteral nutrition in children, with neurological disease

153 Current guidelines recommend enteral nutrition in critically ill adults; however, poo

154 rvations support recommendations for "early" enteral nutrition in critically ill patients.

155 Enteral nutrition in patients receiving either venoarter

156 outcomes as compared to initial full-energy enteral nutrition in patients with acute respiratory fai

157 sed the evidence on effects of probiotics on enteral nutrition in preterm neonates.

158 the effects of probiotic supplementation on enteral nutrition in preterm neonates.

159 r strains used specifically for facilitating enteral nutrition in this population.

160 Patients received adequate enteral nutrition in three of the studies.

161 59% days, B: 69%, C: 71%, p < .001), use of enteral nutrition increased from A to B (stable in C), a

162 enteral nutrition to supplement insufficient enteral nutrition increases morbidity in the intensive c

163 odulating nutrients vs standard high-protein enteral nutrition, initiated within 48 hours of ICU admi

164 o two groups: early enteral nutrition (early enteral nutrition, intervention) by nasojejunal tube (n

165 The optimization of enteral nutrition is a priority in preterm neonates worl

166 Enteral nutrition is a widely used therapy for nutrition

167 ng increased calories with early, aggressive enteral nutrition is associated with improved clinical o

168 Early enteral nutrition is associated with less anastomotic le

169 Although enteral nutrition is generally the preferred feeding rou

170 Providing effective enteral nutrition is important during critical illness.

171 hic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the question of enteral nutrition is increasingly raised in NIV users AL

172 Perioperative enteral nutrition is more effective than postoperative n

173 Enteral nutrition is more efficacious and poses lower ri

174 It appears that enteral nutrition is more likely to produce hypoglycemia

175 icacious in selected patient groups for whom enteral nutrition is problematic.

176 Enteral nutrition is provided to mechanically ventilated

177 ly nutrient dependent, and aggressive use of enteral nutrition is required to stimulate its completio

178 Early enteral nutrition is safe and associated with significan

179 ovide preliminary evidence that hypercaloric enteral nutrition is safe and tolerable in patients with

180 read acceptance in cases where initiation of enteral nutrition is slow to start or is contraindicated

181 Using a mouse TPN model, removing enteral nutrition leads to decreased crypt proliferation

182 BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Exclusive enteral nutrition may be an effective therapy in malnour

183 Exclusive enteral nutrition may be considered as a steroid-sparing

184 Enteral nutrition may be more effective than parenteral

185 Enteral nutrition may result in deleterious effects on t

186 ontribute to the pathogenesis of diarrhea in enteral nutrition, meaning that approaches to its preven

187 dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition.Measurements and Main Results: Partici

188 f research suggests that ongoing maintenance enteral nutrition (MEN) can be beneficial in maintaining

189 xclusion criteria were contraindications for enteral nutrition, moribund condition, BMI less than 18

190 ications for tube placement were: access for enteral nutrition (n = 18), drainage of mediastinal absc

191 this study was to compare nasojejunal early enteral nutrition (NJEEN) with total parenteral nutritio

192 s adverse events considered to be related to enteral nutrition occurred in 5 patients.

193 and type of nutritional support (e.g., early enteral nutrition: odds ratio, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.93-3.63;

194 4, control = 185) who actually received some enteral nutrition, of whom 101 patients (IMN = 50, contr

195 ve assessed the effects of parenteral versus enteral nutrition on outcomes (ie, complications, infect

196 in proteolysis, investigating the effect of enteral nutrition on proteolysis and protein accretion,

197 s study was to examine the impact of delayed enteral nutrition on small intestinal absorption of 3-O-

198 dy has prospectively tested the influence of enteral nutrition on the risk of stress ulcer prophylaxi

199 ohn's disease patients starting therapy with enteral nutrition or anti-TNFalpha antibodies and reveal

200 n additional 48 hours and who were receiving enteral nutrition or expected to start imminently.

201 rwent intravenous cannulation and were given enteral nutrition or TPN for 7 days.

202 Approaches such as minimal enteral nutrition or trophic feedings may partially alle

203 l nutrition, enteral nutrition, or exclusive enteral nutrition), or those on a Crohn's disease exclus

204 trition therapies (eg, parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or exclusive enteral nutrition), or t

205 7 trials that compared parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or nutritional supplements to no nutr

206 djunctive nutritional support (parenteral or enteral nutrition, or nutritional supplements) to patien

207 interleukin (IL)-6 levels were decreased by enteral nutrition (p < 0.05).

208 Calorie delivery from enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition, propofol, and d

209 ifficile, use of antibiotics, laxatives, and enteral nutrition, particularly moderate-high-protein co

210 Adjusted for these factors, enteral nutrition, particularly with moderate-high-prote

211 The amount of enteral nutrition patients with acute lung injury need i

212 ease (CD) exclusion diet (CDED) plus partial enteral nutrition (PEN) and exclusive enteral nutrition

213 DED) was comparable to the CDED with partial enteral nutrition (PEN) diet in induction of remission (

214 DED), a whole-food diet coupled with partial enteral nutrition (PEN), designed to reduce exposure to

215 luded rats with head injury fed the standard enteral nutrition plus arginine (4 g/kg/d, n = 11).

216 :1) to groups that received either intensive enteral nutrition plus methylprednisolone or conventiona

217 Enteral nutrition probably reduces UGIB risk.

218 l, systematic reviews have demonstrated that enteral nutrition produces fewer problems than parentera

219 In very preterm infants receiving early full enteral nutrition, providing early human milk fortificat

220 bed in critically ill CPB patients receiving enteral nutrition proximal to the ligament of Treitz.

221 Early enteral nutrition reduced postoperative ileus, anastomot

222 versy exists on the use of immune-modulating enteral nutrition, reflected by lack of consensus in gui

223 Abstinence, corticosteroids, and enteral nutrition remain the cornerstones in the treatme

224 Continuous administration of enteral nutrition resulted in a rapid anti-inflammatory

225 Initial trophic enteral nutrition resulted in clinical outcomes in mecha

226 utrition (TPN), with the complete removal of enteral nutrition, results in marked changes in intestin

227 nd STEP procedures results in improvement in enteral nutrition, reverses complications of TPN and avo

228 higher percentage of goal energy intake via enteral nutrition route was significantly associated wit

229 xplores management strategies for delivering enteral nutrition safely and effectively to this high-ri

230 cal cord dysfunction is crucial to establish enteral nutrition safely and has been demonstrated to im

231 nt of this study was nutritional adequacy of enteral nutrition; secondary end points measured were co

232 insertion, a routine procedure for long-term enteral nutrition, serves as a crucial intervention for

233 The groups received similar volumes of enteral nutrition solution [1221 mL/d (95% CI: 1120, 132

234 he substitution of a 1.0- with a 1.5-kcal/mL enteral nutrition solution administered at the same rate

235 receive 1.5 (n = 57) or 1.0 (n = 55) kcal/mL enteral nutrition solution at a rate of 1 mL/kg ideal bo

236 ne whether the substitution of a 1.5-kcal/mL enteral nutrition solution for a 1.0-kcal/mL solution re

237 ncluded rats with head injury fed a standard enteral nutrition (Sondalis HP, n = 10) and group 2 incl

238 omponents were protective ventilation, early enteral nutrition, standardization of antibiotherapy for

239 Current evidence suggests that enteral nutrition, started as soon as possible after acu

240 is suggest that, in those patients receiving enteral nutrition, stress ulcer prophylaxis may not be r

241 ompared with delayed, less aggressive use of enteral nutrition suggest that providing increased calor

242 In severely burned pediatric patients, enteral nutrition supplied predominantly as carbohydrate

243 PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Enteral nutrition support is often required in patients

244 these nutrients have been added to standard enteral nutrition support solutions to create several co

245 microbiota profiles of piglets fed by total enteral nutrition (TEN; n = 6) or TPN (n = 5) were compa

246 nses to total parenteral nutrition than with enteral nutrition that approach submaximal response leve

247 ences between total parenteral nutrition and enteral nutrition that are more likely to be responsible

248 g mechanical ventilation and receiving early enteral nutrition, the absence of gastric volume monitor

249 ASN, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetic

250 Among patients ordered early enteral nutrition, the risk of mortality in the body mas

251 However, among those ordered early enteral nutrition, the survival disadvantage for body ma

252 combination of corticosteroid and intensive enteral nutrition therapy is more effective than cortico

253 Since enteral nutrition therapy is the preferred nutritional s

254 's disease exclusion diet, a type of partial enteral nutrition therapy, may be an effective therapy f

255 In the area of enteral nutrition, there have been concerns that early f

256 Of the 101 patients achieving early enteral nutrition, those patients fed with the IMN had a

257 r hepatic dysfunction and those who received enteral nutrition through the nasogastric tube were excl

258 small bowel feeding tubes can safely deliver enteral nutrition to patients when gastric feedings are

259 BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Exclusive enteral nutrition using liquid nutrition formulations is

260 Management of enteral nutrition varies widely both pre and postoperati

261 Enteral nutrition via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrost

262 Subjects were randomized to receive enteral nutrition via G or SI feeding.

263 nteral nutrition, 354 (36%) of whom received enteral nutrition via the postpyloric route.

264 proportion of targeted energy delivered from enteral nutrition was 72% for the early nasojejunal nutr

265 Early enteral nutrition was associated with a significantly lo

266 In both groups, enteral nutrition was attempted early and intravenous mi

267 Intolerance to enteral nutrition was based only on regurgitation and vo

268 nutrition in critically ill patients in whom enteral nutrition was contraindicated did not significan

269 gal anti-inflammatory reflex with lipid-rich enteral nutrition was demonstrated to prevent tissue dam

270 ith corticosteroids, we found that intensive enteral nutrition was difficult to implement and did not

271 Enteral nutrition was found to be an independent factor

272 In the intensive enteral nutrition group, enteral nutrition was given via feeding tube for 14 days

273 f prescribed protein and energy delivered by enteral nutrition was greater in the intervention sites

274 d to stay in ICU for at least 3 days in whom enteral nutrition was indicated.

275 arly initiation of parenteral nutrition when enteral nutrition was insufficient (early parenteral nut

276 as 40% of total nutrient intake, whereas 60% enteral nutrition was necessary to sustain normal mucosa

277 Enteral nutrition was subsequently interrupted on averag

278 Enteral nutrition was systematically offered, although P

279 Enteral nutrition was the only factor that was protectiv

280 Enteral nutrition was used in 67% of the patients and wa

281 Given that birth marks the first exposure to enteral nutrition, we investigated how nutrient-regulate

282 critically ill patients suitable to receive enteral nutrition were compared with 12 healthy subjects

283 Enteral nutrition with a nasogastric/orogastric feeding

284 We determined if enteral nutrition with anti-inflammatory fatty acids, ei

285 These findings suggest that enteral nutrition with EPA+GLA and antioxidants may redu

286 Enteral nutrition with gastric or jejunal feeding in hea

287 provide instruments for the early supply of enteral nutrition with immune-boosting antioxidants and

288 nts in whom it was possible to achieve early enteral nutrition with Impact had a significant reductio

289 trials comparing patients receiving standard enteral nutrition with patients receiving a commercially

290 However, enteral nutrition with PEG transfers treatment responsib

291 Removal of enteral nutrition with the administration of TPN is asso

292 s is a viable long-term treatment option for enteral nutrition, with complication rates similar to th

293 Patients were randomized to either enteral nutrition within 24 hrs of admission (14 "early

294 l ventilation for more than 2 days and given enteral nutrition within 36 hours after intubation at 9

295 than 24 hours, of which 74,771 were ordered enteral nutrition within the first 48 hours.

296 delines have recommended achieving full-dose enteral nutrition within the first 72 hours of ICU admis

297 d for 7 days with either a diabetes-specific enteral nutrition without (G group, n=7) or with graded

298 tained from Medicare (part B) parenteral and enteral nutrition workload statistics, Blue Cross and Bl

299 esis that initial low-volume (i.e., trophic) enteral nutrition would decrease episodes of gastrointes

300 h and their effect on preventing diarrhea in enteral nutrition would seemingly be strain dependent.