Effect of combined parenteral and enteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition alone for critically ill patients A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aim: The increased mortality rate and other poor prognosis make malnutrition a serious issue for adult critically ill patients in intensive care unit care. This study was to compare outcomes between combined parenteral and enteral nutrition and enteral nutrition alone for adult critically ill patients. Materials and methods: The PubMed (June 30st, 2018), EMBASE (June 30st, 2018), and Cochrane library databases (June 30st, 2018) were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of comparing combined PN and EN with EN alone were eligible. Relative risks (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Results: Eight RCTs involving 5360 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with combined PN and EN, fewer respiratory infections (RR, 1.13 [95% CI 1.01-1.25]) and shorter length of days at hospital (MD, 1.83 [95% CI 1.05-2.62]) were observed in EN alone group. And no significant differences were found on hospital mortality (RR, 0.91 [95% CI 0.74-1.12]), length of days in ICU (MD, -0.23 [95% CI -1.79 to 1.32]), duration of ventilatory support (MD, -1.10 [95% CI -3.15 to 0.94]), albumin (MD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21]), or prealbumin (MD, -0.77 [95% CI -0.22 to 1.75]) between theses 2 groups. Conclusion: Receiving EN alone decreased the respiratory infections and length of days at hospital for critically ill patients. Combined PN and EN did not add up the potential risk from PN and EN on hospital mortality, length of days in ICU, duration of ventilatory support, albumin, and prealbumin.