Monitoring of gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition

Hideto Yasuda, Natsuki Kondo, Ryohei Yamamoto, Sadaharu Asami, Takayuki Abe, Hiraku Tsujimoto, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka, Hideto Yasuda, Natsuki Kondo, Ryohei Yamamoto, Sadaharu Asami, Takayuki Abe, Hiraku Tsujimoto, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka

Abstract

Background: The main goal of enteral nutrition (EN) is to manage malnutrition in order to improve clinical outcomes. However, EN may increase the risks of vomiting or aspiration pneumonia during gastrointestinal dysfunction. Consequently, monitoring of gastric residual volume (GRV), that is, to measure GRV periodically and modulate the speed of enteral feeding according to GRV, has been recommended as a management goal in many intensive care units. Yet, there is a lack of robust evidence that GRV monitoring reduces the level of complications during EN. The best protocol of GRV monitoring is currently unknown, and thus the precise efficacy and safety profiles of GRV monitoring remain to be ascertained.

Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of GRV monitoring during EN.

Search methods: We searched electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for relevant studies on 3 May 2021. We also checked reference lists of included studies for additional information and contacted experts in the field.

Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), randomized cross-over trials, and cluster-RCTs investigating the effects of GRV monitoring during EN. We imposed no restrictions on the language of publication.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened the search results for eligible studies and extracted trial-level information from each included study, including methodology and design, characteristics of study participants, interventions, and outcome measures. We assessed risk of bias for each study using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We followed guidance from the GRADE framework to assess the overall certainty of evidence across outcomes. We used a random-effects analytical model to perform quantitative synthesis of the evidence. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous and mean difference (MD) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes.

Main results: We included eight studies involving 1585 participants. All studies were RCTs conducted in ICU settings. Two studies (417 participants) compared less-frequent (less than eight hours) monitoring of GRV against a regimen of more-frequent (eight hours or greater) monitoring. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of frequent monitoring of GRV on mortality rate (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.37; I² = 8%; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.83; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD 2.00 days, 95% CI -2.15 to 6.15; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of vomiting (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.09; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (500 participants) compared no GRV monitoring with frequent (12 hours or less) monitoring. Similarly, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of no monitoring of GRV on mortality rate (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.23; I² = 51%; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.13; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), length of hospital stay (MD -1.53 days, 95% CI -4.47 to 1.40; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), and incidence of vomiting (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.93; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). One study (322 participants) assessed the impact of GRV threshold (500 mL per six hours) on clinical outcomes. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the threshold for GRV at time of aspiration on mortality rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.38; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), incidence of pneumonia (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.90 days, 95% CI -2.60 to 4.40; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies (140 participants) explored the effects of returning or discarding the aspirated/drained GRV. The evidence is uncertain about the effect of discarding or returning the aspirated/drained GRV on the incidence of vomiting (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.63; heterogeneity not applicable; very low-certainty evidence) and volume aspirated from the stomach (MD -7.30 mL, 95% CI -26.67 to 12.06, I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) We found no studies comparing the effects of protocol-based EN strategies that included GRV-related criteria against strategies that did not include such criteria.

Authors' conclusions: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GRV on clinical outcomes including mortality, pneumonia, vomiting, and length of hospital stay.