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 itically ill patients anticipated to receive enteral nutrition.

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

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

8 matic approaches to treating diarrhea during enteral nutrition.

9 cer prophylaxis and the moderating effect of enteral nutrition.

10 d to develop 'best practice' guidelines with 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 died critically ill patients receiving early enteral nutrition.

22 initial hypocaloric-hyponitrogenous dose of enteral nutrition.

23 ng minimal enteral feeds versus full caloric enteral nutrition.

24 with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis receiving enteral nutrition.

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

26 t common myths and misconceptions related to enteral nutrition.

27 and who were already receiving percutaneous enteral nutrition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

34 Enteral nutrition access can be obtained by a variety of

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

36 Changes in enteral nutrition adequacy between the active and passiv

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

46 9 months postsurgery, the patient is on full enteral nutrition and has suffered neither technical com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

74 Enteral nutrition continues as a highly used medical the

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

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

77 Enteral nutrition, directed by a protocol, was delivered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

108 Enteral nutrition, however, does not appear better than

109 (1-5 g/kg/day) (GA group, n=7) or a standard enteral nutrition (HP group, n=10).

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

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

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

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

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

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

116 Early enteral nutrition in burn patients blunts the hypermetab

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

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

119 Enteral nutrition in patients receiving either venoarter

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

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

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

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

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

125 59% days, B: 69%, C: 71%, p < .001), use of enteral nutrition increased from A to B (stable in C), a

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

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

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

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

130 Enteral nutrition is a widely used therapy for nutrition

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

132 Early enteral nutrition is associated with less anastomotic le

133 Although enteral nutrition is generally the preferred feeding rou

134 Providing effective enteral nutrition is important during critical illness.

135 Perioperative enteral nutrition is more effective than postoperative n

136 Enteral nutrition is more efficacious and poses lower ri

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

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

139 Enteral nutrition is provided to mechanically ventilated

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

141 Early enteral nutrition is safe and associated with significan

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

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

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

145 Enteral nutrition may be more effective than parenteral

146 Enteral nutrition may result in deleterious effects on t

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

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

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

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

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

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

153 4, control = 185) who actually received some enteral nutrition, of whom 101 patients (IMN = 50, contr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

161 7 trials that compared parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or nutritional supplements to no nutr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

169 Early enteral nutrition reduced postoperative ileus, anastomot

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

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

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

173 Initial trophic enteral nutrition resulted in clinical outcomes in mecha

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

200 Since enteral nutrition therapy is the preferred nutritional s

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

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

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

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

205 Management of enteral nutrition varies widely both pre and postoperati

206 Enteral nutrition via a percutaneous endoscopic gastrost

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

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

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

210 Early enteral nutrition was associated with a significantly lo

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

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

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

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

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

216 Enteral nutrition was found to be an independent factor

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

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

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

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

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

222 Enteral nutrition was subsequently interrupted on averag

223 Enteral nutrition was systematically offered, although P

224 Enteral nutrition was the only factor that was protectiv

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

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

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

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

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

230 Enteral nutrition with gastric or jejunal feeding in hea

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

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

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

234 However, enteral nutrition with PEG transfers treatment responsib

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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