Effect of protein composition of enteral formula on gastric content volume during continuous feeding: A randomized controlled cross-over study in healthy adults.

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS\nEnteral nutrition with polymeric intact protein formula is the preferred medical nutrition strategy in critically ill patients when oral intake is insufficient. Enteral nutrition formulas are often rich in casein protein, which has coagulating properties. Coagulation in the stomach impedes gastric emptying and might result in high gastric residual volumes which are a clinical sign of gastrointestinal intolerance and a major reason to decrease or to discontinue enteral feeding. In this study the impact of protein composition of enteral formula on gastric content volume (GCV) during and after continuous feeding was tested in healthy volunteers in whom gastrointestinal conditions of critically ill patients were mimicked.\n\n\nMETHODS\nAn enteral formula including 4 proteins (P4) with non-coagulating properties was compared to a casein-dominant formula (Cas) with coagulating properties. Esomeprazole and codeine were administered to mimic stress ulcer prophylaxis and induce gastroduodenal motor dysfunction, both being hallmarks of critically ill patients. GCV was measured with magnetic resonance imaging during and after continuous enteral feeding (100\xa0mL/h for 4h) in a randomized single-center cross-over study. Results are provided as mean (SD). Significance level of p\xa0<\xa00.05 was applied.\n\n\nRESULTS\nTwenty subjects completed the study (14 women, 6 men, 25.8 (4.6) years old, BMI: 22.5 (1.5) kg/m2). The GCV as change from baseline at T\xa0=\xa0240 (primary endpoint) did not differ between study products (P4: 124.3 (83.4) vs. Cas: 137.1 (102.0) mL, 95% CI:\xa0-57.4, 27.0, p\xa0=\xa00.457). During feeding and after cessation of feeding, the area under the GCV-curve (AUC0-360 GCV) for P4 and Cas was 44631.1 (15546.1) and 52822.2 (19686.1) mL∗min, respectively (p\xa0=\xa00.061). During feeding the GCV was lower at T\xa0=\xa0180\xa0min (175.4 (64.8) vs. 205.2 (75.4) mL, p\xa0=\xa00.038) and after cessation of feeding at T\xa0=\xa0300\xa0min (81.3 (71.1) vs. 116.3 (84.3) mL, p\xa0=\xa00.004) and T\xa0=\xa0330\xa0min (39.9 (53.9) vs. 73.6 (81.1) mL, p\xa0=\xa00.031). With P4 it took less time to reach half of the GCV at T\xa0=\xa0240\xa0min compared to Cas (52.8 (27.6) vs. 65.4 (29.9) min, p\xa0=\xa00.020).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nIn this study in which healthy volunteers received esomeprazole and codeine to mimic gastrointestinal conditions of critically ill patients, observations of secondary endpoints suggest faster gastric emptying with P4 compared to Cas, and less gastric accumulation, possibly due to the non-coagulating properties of the P4 protein blend. Considering the small effect and the possible clinical relevance of reduced intragastric accumulation of enteral nutrition, the potential impact of protein coagulation should be further investigated in relevant study populations. Registered under Netherlands Trial Register identifier no. NTR6423.