Skip to main content

Table 1 Nutrition and nosocomial pneumonia: study characteristics

From: Systematic review: The relation between nutrition and nosocomial pneumonia: randomized trials in critically ill patients

Author [reference] Intervention Population Allocation Cointerventions Exclusion post- Blinding of Definition of
      randomization outcome accessor VAP
Young et al [22] Nasogastric Head injury `Was randomly All patients received 7 Exclusions: Neurosurgen Infiltrate and
  enteral nutrition patients assigned to' prokinetic 5-early death, 2 evaluating leukocytosis
  vs total     -withdrew outcomes was premature cells,
  parenteral      blinded fever, positive
  nutrition       sputum culture
Moore et al [23] Enteral nutrition Trauma patients `Randomized by Broad spectrum No exclusions: Outcome New infiltrate and
  via needle requiring computer antibiotics to both 4-early death, assessment not fever, leukocytosis
  catheter emergency assignment' groups 3-reoperation, blinded and purulent
  jejunostomy vs celiotomy    3-chronic illness,   sputum
  total parenteral     2-ATI> 40,   
  nutrition     2-head injury,   
Kudsk et al [24] Enteral nutrition Patients with blunt `Computer NR 2 Exclusions: Secondary New infiltrate and
  via needle and penetrating generated   death within 4 confirmation of leukocytosis,
  jejunostomy vs abdominal trauma randomization   days outcome by positive sputum or
  total parenteral   table'    blinded surgeon BAL, or purulent
  nutrition       sputum
Borzotta et al [25] Enteral nutrition Patients with `Computer Jejunostomy group NR Outcome Infiltrate and
  via needle severe closed head generated random had gastrostomy   assessment not fever, leukocytosis,
  catheter injury number tube drainage   blinded leukorrhea and
  jejunostomy vs   assignment'     bacteria on Gram
Eyer et al [26] Early (<24 h) Patients with blunt `Randomization by All patients received 14 Exclusions: Outcome New infiltrate and
  nasoduodenal abdominal trauma card drawn from either sucralfate or 3-regular diet, assessment not significant growth
  tube feeding vs   sealed envelope' antacids but group not 3-steroids, blinded on sputum
  late (>72 h)    specified 2-no NGT,   culture with <10
  nasoduodenal     6-miscellaneous   epithelial cells,
  tube feeding       >25 wbc/hpf OR
        secretions, fever
        and leukocytosis
Montecalvo et al [27] Gastric vs jejunal Medical and `Randomly 25 Patients received 5 Patients crossed Cultures New and
  tube feeding surgical ICU assigned sucralfate; 1 H2RA; over from jejunal to reviewed blinded persistent
   patients according to 2 H2RA and antacids; gastric group and to group infiltrate and
    computer 8 sucralfate and 2 patients crossed assignment three of: purulent
    generated random either H2RA or over from gastric   sputum with
    number code' antacids; 1 no stress to jejunal group;   numerous
     ulcer prophylaxis, but these 7 patients   bacteria, purulent
     group not specified were included until   sputum with
      the day they   nosocomial
      crossed over   pathogen, T>386,
        or wbc >10
Bonten et al [28] Intermittent Mixed ICU `Randomization Intermittent: 13- None Outcome New and
  enteral feeding patients and was performed antacids and 17-   assessment not persistent
  (18 h) vs cardiac surgery with sealed sucralfate;   blinded infiltrate and 3 of:
  continuous patients needing envelopes' continuous: 7 -    T>38 or T<355
  enteral feeding ventilation > 3   antacids and 23 -    OR wbc > 10
  (24 h) days   sucralfate    and/or left shift
        or wbc < 3 OR 10
        wbc/hpf on ET
        Gram strain OR
        positive ET
        aspirate and one
        of these: BAL
        (positive if > 104
        CFU/ml) OR
        PSB (positive if
        >103 CFU/ml)
        OR positive
        blood culture OR
        positive pleural
Gottsschlich et al [29] Modular tube Burn patients `Random number NR NR Physicians, Infiltrate and
  feeding vs two (>10% BSA) table stratified for    nurses, positive sputum
  standard enteral   age, center and    technicians, culture and
  feeding   burn size'    clinical and systemic
  (Osmolite vs      research antibotics
  Traumacal)      personnel were  
Moore et al [30] Early enteral Trauma patients `Randomized by a NR 16 exclusions: Outcome New and
  immune-   computer-   9-inappropriate assessment not progressive
  enhancing   generated   randomizations, blinded infiltrate, fever,
  feeding vs   schedule'   7-drop -outs   leukocytosis,
  standard enteral     1-early death   positive sputum
  feeding       Gram stain with
  (Vivonex)       many polys
Kudsk et al [31] Early immune- Trauma patients `Computer- Short-term broad NR All caregivers New or changing
  enhancing requiring generated spectrum antibiotics   blinded except infiltrate and
  feeding via emergency randomization to both groups   nutritionist fever,
  jejunostomy vs celiotomy table'     leukocytosis,
  standard enteral       purulent sputum
  feeding       underwent BAL
  (Promote)       (positive if > 103
  1. Abbreviations: ATI=acute trauma index; BAL=bronchoalveolar lavage; NGT=nasogastric tube; wbc=white blood cells; hpf=high power field; H2RA=histamine-2-receptor antagonists; ET=endotracheal; CFU=colony forming units; BSA=body surface area; NR=not reported; VAP=ventilator-associated pneumonia; PSB=protected specimen brush.