Article

What is the risk of nocturnal supine enteral nutrition?

Department of Hepatology and Nutrition Cote de nacre 14033 Caen, Cedex, France.
Clinical Nutrition (Impact Factor: 3.3). 01/2006; 24(6):1014-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2005.08.001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT One complication of enteral nutrition (EN) is gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Semi-recumbent position is advised because posture influence reflux in critically ill patients. No data is available in stable patients.
To study influence of position on reflux during nocturnal nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy in stable patients.
Prospective cross-over study. Reflux was measured by 48 h-pH-metry, in supine and semi-recumbent position. The end point was % time spent under pH 4. For analysis, 2 subgroups were identified (refluxers and non-refluxers). A total of 16 patients (65 year+/-13) were included, most had neurological diseases.
There was no increase of reflux probability in any position in all patients (% time spent under pH 4: supine vs. semi-recumbent: 4.4+/-7.7 vs. 3.5+/-7.0 NS). In non-refluxers, supine position did not increase % time under pH 4 (0.1+/-0.12 vs. 0.3+/-0.6, NS), and did not modify other parameters (number of reflux 0 +/-0.9 vs. 7 +/-19 NS, duration of the longest reflux (min) 1.1+/-1.7 vs. 1+/-1.7 NS). In refluxers, supine position did not worsen pre-existent reflux (% time under pH 4: 11.7+/-8.7 vs. 8.9+/-9.7 NS, number of reflux 119+/-88 vs. 91+/-89 NS, duration of the longest reflux (min) 19+/-19 vs. 24+/-21 NS).
Our data suggest that position does not influence reflux in stable patients with EN.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
39 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: : This study examined the effect of body position on lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure. In 36 healthy subjects and 31 patients with reflux esophagitis, LES and intragastric pressures were measured with subjects in the supine and sitting positions by the intraluminal microtransducer method. LES pressure was significantly lower in the sitting position than in the supine position in both healthy subjects and patients with reflux esophagitis. Intragastric pressure was significantly higher in the sitting position than in the supine position in both healthy subjects and patients with reflux esophagitis, but this increase was less marked than the decrease in LES pressure in the sitting position. The overlap of LES pressure values between healthy subjects and patients with reflux esophagitis was lower in the sitting position than in the supine position. We conclude that the measurement of LES pressure in the sitting position reflects LES function more accurately.
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences 04/1973; 18(5):441-442. · 2.26 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) is reported to be a safe method for enteral feeding, although its ability to prevent gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) during enteral feeding remains controversial. In 12 elderly patients fed enterally to avoid the risk of tracheal aspiration, we have compared two 24-h oesophageal pH profiles, one recorded when enteral feeding was delivered at first via a nasogastric tube (NGT), and the other via a PEG. The second recording was always performed at least 8 days after gastrostomy placement. Enteral nutrition consisted of 500 ml of a polymeric diet delivered 3 times a day at 08:00, 13:00 and 18:00. After gastrostomy placement, enteral feeding was associated with a pathological acid reflux in 8 out of 12 patients. In all of these 8 patients, GOR was mostly related to a high number of reflux episodes. In 4 out of 8 patients, GOR occurred only during the 3 h following the administration of the nutritive diet. In 4 of the patients, GOR did not occur any more after removal of the NGT, whilst gastrostomy placement was followed by GOR in 5 patients. GOR during enteral feeding via PEG is common in elderly subjects. We have shown that a chronological relationship existed in some patients between the endoscopic procedure and the onset of a pathological GOR.
    Clinical Nutrition 09/1996; 15(4):179-83. · 3.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Findings from recent studies indicate that transient relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter (LES) is an important contributory mechanism to spontaneous episodes of gastroesophageal reflux (GER) in normal subjects as well as in patients with reflux esophagitis. Our study aim was to evaluate the interrelationship between reduction of LES pressure and elevation of intraabdominal pressure in the induction of GER in healthy subjects. Seven volunteers were studied supine after gastric loading with 0.1 N HCl. A pH probe recorded acid GER. Leg raising (LR) or abdominal compression (AC) were used as stress maneuvers to increase intraabdominal pressure, either alone or in combination with stimuli that concurrently lowered LES pressure, namely multiple rapid swallows (RS) or intraesophageal balloon distention (BD). Each individual stimulus and stimulus combination was tested three times, giving a total of 24 test maneuvers per subject. The test maneuvers elicited 2–12 GERs in each subject. The GER incidence for single maneuvers was: AC, 0%; LR, 0%; RS, 19%; and BD, 24%. LR in combination with RS or BD did not increase the incidence of GER above that induced by RS or BD alone. In contrast, AC concurrent with RS and BD increased the incidence of GER to 52% and 81%, respectively. For all test conditions, a prerequisite for the occurrence of GER was a fall in LES pressure to a minimal value of 3 mm Hg or less. GER never occurred when LES pressure was 4 mm Hg, even during intervals of increased intraabdominal pressure. We conclude that (1) virtually complete absence of LES pressure is an essential prerequisite for the induction of GER; (2) during intervals of negligible LES pressure, elevation of intraabdominal pressure increases the prevalence of GER;and (3) LR by normal subjects induces a substantial increase in the abdominal pressure but does not increase GER, probably due to a pinch-cock effect of the diaphragmatic hiatus on the intrahiatal esophageal segment.
    Digestive Diseases and Sciences 02/1988; 33(3):270-275. · 2.26 Impact Factor