Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 10, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Impact of higher enteral protein delivery on gastrointestinal dysfunction in critical illness: A systematic review
Anil Bangalore Gopal1, Thejeswini Mahadevaiah2, Andrew Chun1
1The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Background:
Protein delivery is currently of interest in critical illness. It is plausible that higher protein delivery, targeting international recommendations, may cause gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction. We aimed to determine relationships between enteral protein delivery and GI dysfunction in critically ill adults.
Methods:
A systematic review and meta-analysis according to a predetermined protocol (PROSPERO CRD42022345591) encompassing MEDLINE, Embase, EMCARE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL databases (between January 1, 2000, and August 5, 2025) was conducted. Parallel-group randomized trials using an enteral nutrition intervention reporting (1) statistically significant differences in protein delivered and (2) any GI dysfunction-related outcome were included. Data are presented as mean ± SD or risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI.
Results:
From 15 studies (5277 patients), mean protein delivery was 1.05 ± 0.38 vs 0.47 ± 0.23 g/kg/day in higher- vs lower-protein groups, respectively (nine studies), and 66.00 ± 23.83 vs 42.70 ± 12.99 g/day (six studies reporting protein delivery as grams per day). The higher-protein group had an increased risk of vomiting (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.11-1.42; P = 0.0004), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%; P = 0.58) and no influence on gastric residual volumes (GRVs) ≥300 ml (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.69-2.00; P = 0.55), prokinetic administration (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.56; P = 0.07), abdominal distension (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40-1.13; P = 0.14), diarrhea (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.81-1.20; P = 0.90), or constipation (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13; P = 0.68). There was no evidence of publication bias.
Conclusion:
Higher protein delivery is associated with increased rates of vomiting. Several important confounders (feed volume, concurrent energy delivery, supplemental parenteral nutrition) significantly influence this outcome.
More Related Videos
09:17Use of a Central Venous Line for Fluids, Drugs and Nutrient Administration in a Mouse Model of Critical Illness
Published on: May 2, 2017
09:36Effect of Hyaluronic Acid 35 kDa on an In Vitro Model of Preterm Small Intestinal Injury and Healing Using Enteroid-Derived Monolayers
Published on: July 28, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Enteral Nutrition II: Nasointestinal and Gastrostomy Feeding
Nasointestinal Feeding
Nasointestinal feeding involves placing a tube...
Enteral Nutrition I: Orogastric and Nasogastric Feeding
Orogastric (OG) and nasogastric (NG) feeding are two standard methods used for enteral nutrition. Enteral nutrition is often preferred over...
Chronic Kidney Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Overview of Protein Metabolism
Amino acids play various roles in the body once they are absorbed into cells. They are restructured...
Peritoneal Dialysis II: Peritoneal Dialysis Systems and Complications
Inflammatory Bowel Disease III: Diagnostic Studies and Management I-Nutritional Therapy
Diagnostic studies
A colonoscopy is the definitive screening test, distinguishing ulcerative colitis from other colon diseases with similar symptoms. During a colonoscopy test, inflamed mucosa with exudate ulcerations can be observed, and biopsies are taken to determine the histologic characteristics of the...