Search

Objective: To compare metabolic, nutritional and epidemiological data in two groups of patients, one receiving total enteral nutrition, via nasoenteric tube, and one receiving both enteral and parenteral nutrition., Design: A prospective, randomized study., Setting: A general ICU, with both medical and surgical patients, in a big regional University and National Health Service hospital., Patients: 24 patients requiring Intensive Care after major surgery or because suffering from severe head injury or major neurological impairment., Interventions: All patients initially received total parenteral nutrition: after 4 days 12 patients were "weaned" to total enteral nutrition and 12 stayed on mixed parenteral and enteral nutrition. LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS AND OBSERVATIONAL DATA: Blood levels of albumin, prealbumin, transferrin, ALT, AST, bilirubin, blood urea, blood glucose, total linfocite count, and nutritional and epidemiological data such as nitrogen balance, calorie intake, diarrhea incidence, blood and sputum cultures and radiologic evidence of pneumonia are analysed., Results: At T1, NET patients were able to reduce their nitrogen losses (0.27.1 g/kg +/-0.12 vs 0.35 +/- 0.13 at TO; p < 0.05) and improve nitrogen balance (-9 +/- 7 vs -2 +/- 6 at T0; p < 0.05); they also had a better total linfocite count (2034 +/- 304 vs. 1413 +/- 360 of the MISTA group; p < 0.05), and a lower incidence of pneumonia as documented by sputum cultures and radiograms., Conclusions: Patients fed with both parenteral and enteral nutrition did no better than those on total enteral nutrition as far as nutritional and metabolic indices were concerned; they also seemed more prone to infections than those on total enteral nutrition, indicating that mixed nutrition may result in more stable feeding, but this does not seem to have any beneficial nutritional, immunological and metabolic effect.

Twelve patients with intense or very intense pain of the non-incident type, secondary to neoplasia, were divided at random into two groups and treated with an epidural dose of 3 mg of morphine in 10 ml of glucose solution (6 patients = group M) or with 0.3 mg of buprenorphine in the same vehicle (6 patients = group B). None of the patients had previously been treated with opioids by any route. After first determining basal values, the following assessments were carried out: (1) evaluation of the analgesic effect of the drugs with checks at 30 min and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 18 h after administration, using a visual analogue scale, a numerical rating scale and a simple descriptive scale; and (2) evaluation of effects on respiration by means of checks at 30 and 90 min and at 6 and 18 h, on control of breathing indices (P0.1; VE; VA; Ti/Ttot; VT/Ti; RR), gas exchange indices (delta(A-a)O2; VD/VT; pAO2; R) and blood gas and acid-base indices (paO2; paCO2; pH; HCO3-). The data obtained were analyzed statistically using analysis of variance and Student's t test. The study results showed very similar analgesic efficacy for both treatments at a single dosage level of morphine (3 mg) compared to buprenorphine (0.3 mg), which was approximately 3 times greater than an equivalent parenteral dose of morphine (10 mg). Analysis of the results revealed statistically, though not clinically, significant changes in respiratory function indices, only in the buprenorphine-treated group. The effects of buprenorphine on respiratory function, when administered epidurally at the above dosage, are less favourable than those of morphine in the early measurements, probably because of its greater systemic absorption; nevertheless, the risk of delayed respiratory depression appears to be less after buprenorphine than after morphine.