What type of study is this?

This is a Meta-Analysis study (also classified as: Systematic Review).

What question did this study set out to answer?

This research aims to evaluate enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients with sepsis, focusing on mortality and ICU outcomes.

January 14, 2026Open Forum Infectious Diseases0 citationsOpen Access

View Full Paper

P-21. Impact of Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition on Mortality and Morbidity in Critically Ill patients with Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

GCGabriel CedeñoUniversidad San Francisco de Quito JZJose Matias ZaldumbideUniversidad San Francisco de Quito EMEsteban Marcelo MogrovejoUniversidad San Francisco de Quito

Key Points

This research aims to evaluate enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients with sepsis, focusing on mortality and ICU outcomes.
Conducted systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and observational studies.
Searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for relevant studies comparing EN to PN in sepsis patients.
Analyzed outcomes including 28-day mortality, 90-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and ICU acquired infections.
No significant difference in 28-day mortality (RR 0.73) and 90-day mortality (RR 0.83) between EN and PN.
ICU acquired infections showed no significant difference (RR 0.63).
Significant reduction in ICU length of stay with enteral nutrition (mean difference -3.15 days).

Abstract

Abstract Background The difference between enteral (EN) and parenteral nutrition (PN) in critical patients with sepsis is crucial for optimizing nutritional support strategies to improve outcomes. Understanding which method offers fewer complications, and improved survival can guide clinical decisions and enhance patient care in intensive care settings. 28 Days Mortality Forrest Plot of analysis for 28 days mortality 90 Days Mortality Forrest Plot of analysis for 90 days mortality Methods PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compare EN to PN in critically ill patients with sepsis and reported the outcomes of (1) 28-day mortality; (2) 90-day mortality; (3) ICU length of stay; and (4) UCI acquired infections. Analysis was made with Cochrane RevMan Version 8.21. A random-effects model was used for outcomes with high heterogenicity and assessed with I2 statistics. ICU acquired infections Forrest Plot for number of ICU acquired infections ICU Length of Stay Forrest Plot of Intensive Care Unit Length of Stay Results We included 6 studies comprised of 3213 patients, 1628 (50,6%) received EN and 1585 (49.3%) received PN. Mortality at 28-days (RR 0,73; 95% CI 0.44 to 1.22; p=0,23), mortality at 90-days (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0,56 to 1,25; p=0,38) and ICU acquired infections (RR 0,63; 95% CI 0,39-1,02; p=0,06) show no significant difference between the two groups. In contrast, ICU length of stay (mean difference –3,15; 95% CI –6,08 to -0,021; p=0,04) showed a significant reduction in hospital days required for patients with enteral nutrition compared to patients with parenteral nutrition. Conclusion While EN was not found to be superior to PN in reducing mortality or ICU-acquired infections in septic critically ill patients, it was associated with a statistically significant reduction in ICU length of stay. These findings support the consideration of EN as a preferred nutritional strategy when feasible. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

问 AI

Bookmark

View Full Paper

问 AI

Bookmark

View Full Paper

P-21. Impact of Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition on Mortality and Morbidity in Critically Ill patients with Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta Analysis

Key Points

Abstract

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider