Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of randomized trails of nutrition and nosocomial pneumonia

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

Intervention (author [reference]) Pneumonia rates Relative risk (95% Cl)
Nasogastric enteral nutrition vs parenteral nutrition (Young [22]) TPN: 6/23 (26%) 1.23 (0.51–2.95)
  EN: 9/28 (32%)  
Jejunostomy feeding vs total parenteral nutrition (Moore [23]) TPN: 6/30 (20%) Undefined
  EN: 0/29 (0%)  
Jejunostomy feeding vs total parenteral nutrition (Kudsk [24]) TPN: 14/45 (31%) 0.38 (0.16–0.90)
  EN: 6/51 (12%)  
Jejunostomy feeding vs total parenteral nutrition (Borzotta [25]) TPN: 9/23 (39%) 1.06 (0.56–2.02)
  EN: 15/36 (42%)  
Early nasoduodenal vs late nasoduodenal feeding (Eyer [26]) Late: 4/19 (21%) 2.00 (0.72–5.54)
  Early: 8/19 (42%)  
Jejunal vs gastric feeding (Montecalvo [27]) Gastric: 2/19 (11%) Undefined
  Jejunal: 0/19 (0%)  
Intermittent enteral feeding vs continuous enteral feeding (Bonten [28]) CEF: 5/30 (17%) 1.0 (0.32–3.10)
  IEF: 5/30 (17%)  
Modular tube feeding (MTF) vs Osmolite vs Traumacal (Gottschlich [29]) Osmolite: 6/14 (43%) 0.27 (0.07–1.15)*
  Traumacal: 9/19 (47%) 0.25 (0.06-0.99)
  MTF: 2/17 (12%)  
Immun-Aid vs Vivonex (Moore [30]) Vivonex: 4/47 (9%) 0.92 (0.24–3.48)
  Immun-Aid: 4/51 (8%)  
Immun-Aid vs Promote (Kudsk [31]) Promote: 3/17 (18%) Undefined
  Immun-Aid: 0/16 (0%)  
  1. Abbreviations: EN = enteral nutrition; TPN = total parenteral nutrition; CEF = continuous enteral feeding; IEF = intermittent enteral feeding. * Osmolite compared to MTF. Traumacal compared to MTF.