Comparison of Continuous vs Intermittent Nasogastric Enteral Feeding in Trauma Patients: Perceptions and Practice

Enteral nutrition support (ENS) may be administered by continuous administration or by intermittent bolus, but few studies have compared the advantages and limitations associated with these methods in the trauma patient population. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the impact of continuous vs intermittent nasogastric enteral feeding on gastrointestinal tolerance, pulmonary aspiration, and nutritional indices. A survey of medical and surgical intensive care unit nursing staff was performed to assess perceptions and attitudes toward these 2 delivery methods. Eighteen trauma patients [Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 20] were enrolled in the study; 9 received continuous ENS (CENS) and 9 received intermittent bolus ENS (IENS). Interruption of ENS delivery occurred in more IENS than CENS patients due to elevated residuals and emesis. Diarrhea occurred in more patients (5/9 vs 2/9) and for a longer duration (14/65 vs 6/49 ENS days) in the IENS group compared with the CENS group. Aspiration was detected in 1 IENS patient. Method of nutrient delivery did not seem to influence urine urea nitrogen (UUN) measurements or prealbumin concentrations. Nurses surveyed in the study (n = 25) preferred CENS (84%) compared with IENS (12%). Data from this study suggest that CENS through a nasoenteric feeding tube may facilitate nutrient intake with less gastrointestinal complications in severely injured trauma patients compared with IENS. In addition, the majority of nurses surveyed preferred the continuous method for nutrient delivery.