Administration of enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal complications in Covid-19 critical patients in prone position

• Published in: Clinical nutrition open science Vol. 45; pp. 80 - 90
• Main Authors: Alves de Paula, Jéssica, Rabito, Estela Iraci, Justino, Sandra Regina, Leite, Luíza Silva, Dantas, Danielle, Makiyama da Silva, Jessica Sayume, Maffini, Larissa Farinha, Júnior, Odery Ramos
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01.10.2022; The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism; Elsevier
• Subjects: COVID-19; Enteral nutrition; Original; Prone position; COVID-19; Enteral nutrition; Prone position
• ISSN: 2667-2685; 2667-2685
• DOI: 10.1016/j.nutos.2022.08.003

The prone position (PP) used in the treatment of critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, may be a barrier to enteral nutrition (EN). This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness and complications of EN in the PP, as well as clinical outcomes. Prospective cohort study with patients in EN and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on mechanical ventilation (MV), which whom needed or not PP. Gastrointestinal intolerances (GII) related to PP were evaluated, and correlated with possible confounding factors. EN, days on MV, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) length of stay, hospital length of stay, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and mortality were analyzed. The data were evaluated daily and compared prone group (PG=57) and supine group (SG=69). The PP was associated with GII (P=0.000) and presented in 32 patients (26,44%) with no difference among groups. Association between epinephrine (P=0.003), vasopressin (P=0.018), and GII was observed. There was no difference between the total volume of enteral nutrition (TVEN) infused in the groups. However, the mean EN infused for the days when the patient was on PP was (70.0% ± 31.5) and for the days in supine position was (74.8% ± 27.3), P= 0.006. The PG had a longer time on MV (P=0.005) and ICU (P=0.003) and PP was associated with VAP (P=<0.001). The infused TVEN showed no association with VAP (P=0.09). PP was a determining factor in GII and proved to be a risk factor for VAP, but the EN protocol seems to have ensured an adequate EN supply in PP and be a safe alternative.