Comparison of Continuous and Intermittent Bolus Enteral Nutrition in Patients with Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Randomized Controlled Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24843/mp322r75Keywords:
Enteral nutrition, Brain injury, Intensive care units, Blood glucose, Gastric emptyingAbstract
Introduction: Severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is associated with impaired gastric motility and dysregulated glucose homeostasis, making optimal enteral nutrition challenging. This study compared continuous and intermittent bolus enteral nutrition in terms of gastric residual volume (GRV), glycemic variability, and gastrointestinal tolerance in patients with severe TBI.
Patients and Methods: An assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 60 adult patients with severe TBI admitted to the intensive care unit. Participants were randomly assigned to continuous (n = 30) or intermittent bolus enteral nutrition (n = 30) during the first 24 hours after ICU admission. GRV was measured every 4 hours using gastric ultrasonography. Glycemic variability was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV), and diarrhea was recorded as a marker of gastrointestinal tolerance. GRV was analyzed using repeatedmeasures analysis of variance (ANOVA), while glycemic fluctuation and diarrhea incidence were analyzed using Fisher’s exact and chi-square tests.
Results: Sixty patients were analyzed, with comparable baseline characteristics between groups. Repeated-measures ANOVA demonstrated a significant overall effect of feeding method on GRV (F(1,58) = 158.235, p < 0.001) and a significant time × group interaction (Greenhouse–Geisser corrected F(3.980,230.814) = 3.437, p = 0.010). During the 24-hour observation period, continuous feeding resulted in a lower overall GRV than intermittent bolus feeding (mean difference 18.9 mL; 95% CI 15.9–21.9). Glycemic fluctuation was similar between groups (p = 0.500), whereas diarrhea occurred less frequently with continuous feeding (20.0% vs 50.0%, p = 0.008).
Conclusion: During the first 24 hours of ICU admission, continuous enteral nutrition was associated with lower overall GRV and a lower incidence of diarrhea than intermittent bolus feeding, while glycemic fluctuation was comparable between groups. Further studies are warranted to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes.
Downloads
References
1. Lee HY, Oh BM. Nutrition Management in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Narrative Review. Brain & Neurorehabilitation. 2022;15(1). doi:10.12786/bn.2022.15.e4
2. Ganesh S, Ibrahim NA. Nutrition therapy in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury. Human Nutrition & Metabolism. 2023;34:200219. doi:10.1016/j.hnm.2023.200219
3. Rosyidi RM, Priyanto B, Laraswati NKP, et al. Characteristics and clinical outcome of traumatic brain injury in Lombok, Indonesia. Interdiscip Neurosurg. 2019;18(5):100470.
4. Singer P, Blaser AR, Berger MM, et al. ESPEN practical and partially revised guideline: Clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. Clinical Nutrition. 2023;42(9):1671-1689. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2023.07.011
5. Banaei L, Miranzadeh S, Yadollahi S, et al. Effects of Continuous Versus Bolus Enteral Feeding in Trauma Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Arch Trauma Res. 2022;11(4):205-210.
6. Abdelbaky AM, Elmasry WG, Awad AH. Bolus Versus Continuous Enteral Feeding for Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cureus. Published online February 13, 2024. doi:10.7759/cureus.54136
7. Kurtz P, Rocha EEM. Nutrition Therapy, Glucose Control, and Brain Metabolism in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multimodal Monitoring Approach. Front Neurosci. 2020;14. doi:10.3389/fnins.2020.00190
8. Ichimaru S, Amagai T. Intermittent and Bolus Methods of Feeding in Critical Care. In: Diet and Nutrition in Critical Care. Springer New York; 2014:1-17. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8503-2_139-1
9. Zhu W, Jiang Y, Li J. Intermittent versus continuous tube feeding in patients with hemorrhagic stroke: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2020;74(10):1420-1427. doi:10.1038/s41430-020-0579-6
10. Yasuda H, Kondo N, Yamamoto R, et al. Monitoring of gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021;2021(9). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013335.pub2
11. Reignier J. Effect of Not Monitoring Residual Gastric Volume on Risk of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation and Early Enteral Feeding. JAMA. 2013;309(3):249. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.196377
12. Lee HY, Lee JK, Kim HJ, Ju DL, Lee SM, Lee J. Continuous versus Intermittent Enteral Tube Feeding for Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients. 2022;14(3):664. doi:10.3390/nu14030664
13. Heffernan AJ, Talekar C, Henain M, Purcell L, Palmer M, White H. Comparison of continuous versus intermittent enteral feeding in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):325. doi:10.1186/s13054-022-04140-8
14. Montejo JC, Miñambres E, Bordejé L, et al. Gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition in ICU patients: the REGANE study. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(8):1386-1393. doi:10.1007/s00134-010-1856-y
Downloads
Published
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Agiel Fahlevie Choirunanda, I Wayan Aryabiantara, Ida Bagus Krisna Jaya Sutawan, I Gusti Putu Sukrana Sidemen (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal the right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) that allows others to share, use, distribute, and reproduce the work in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
