Introduction: Malnutrition affects 50% of hospitalized children and 25-70% of critically ill children. Enteral tube feeding is generally considered the preferred modality for critically ill pediatric patients. Clinical advantages of using peptide-based formulas are still controversial in critically ill children. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a peptide-based formula versus a standard polymeric formula on feeding tolerance and whether this will affect the outcome among critically ill children.
Material and methods: This single blind case control study was conducted on 180 randomly selected critically ill children in the pediatric critical care unit (PICU) of Ain Shams University. Patients were divided into 2 groups: a group receiving a standard polymeric formula (group 1; 90 patients) and a group receiving a peptide-based formula (group II; 90 patients). Nutritional requirements, days to reach full enteral feeding, feeding intolerance symptoms and anthropometric measurements were recorded for all patients at admission together with their pediatric risk of mortality score (PRISM). Length of PICU stay, occurrence of sepsis together with survival were analyzed at discharge as outcome measures.
Results: Patients receiving a peptide-based formula showed a significant decrease in feeding interruptions and abdominal distention (p < 0.000), reached full enteral feeding faster (2.60 ±0.74 days versus 5.36 ±1.00 days in patients received polymeric standard formula; p < 0.001) and improved weight gain (p < 0.028). Moreover, duration of sepsis was significantly shorter (p < 0.045), but no difference in mortality was recorded between patient groups.
Conclusions: Peptide-based formula feeding was better tolerated than standard polymeric formula feeding in critically ill pediatric patients. However, the choice of patients receiving the peptide-based formula needs to be further evaluated.
Keywords: critically ill children; feeding; peptide-based; standard formula.
Copyright: © 2020 Termedia & Banach.