A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of ulimorelin and metoclopramide in the treatment of critically ill patients with enteral feeding intolerance: PROMOTE trial.
APACHE
Adult
Aged
Antiemetics
/ standards
Canada
Critical Illness
/ therapy
Double-Blind Method
Enteral Nutrition
/ methods
Female
Gastric Emptying
/ drug effects
Humans
Intensive Care Units
/ organization & administration
Macrocyclic Compounds
/ standards
Male
Metoclopramide
/ standards
Middle Aged
Netherlands
Organ Dysfunction Scores
Spain
United States
Enteral feeding intolerance
Gastric residual volume
Metoclopramide
PROMOTE
Ulimorelin
Volume-based feeding
Journal
Intensive care medicine
ISSN: 1432-1238
Titre abrégé: Intensive Care Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7704851
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
12
12
2018
accepted:
04
03
2019
entrez:
8
5
2019
pubmed:
8
5
2019
medline:
9
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI. One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection. One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups. Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31062046
doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05593-2
pii: 10.1007/s00134-019-05593-2
pmc: PMC9121863
mid: NIHMS1796247
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antiemetics
0
Macrocyclic Compounds
0
Metoclopramide
L4YEB44I46
ulimorelin
LGI67MCW2S
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
647-656Subventions
Organisme : NIAAA NIH HHS
ID : K23 AA026315
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : U54 GM104940
Pays : United States
Investigateurs
Daren K Heyland
(DK)
David C Evans
(DC)
Sarah Jolley
(S)
Ronald Raines
(R)
Kenneth Krell
(K)
Idaho Falls
(I)
Teodoro Grau-Carmona
(T)
Lluis Serviá-Goixart
(L)
Sonia Perez-Quesada
(S)
Jose Ignacio Herrero-Meseguer
(JI)
Enrique Calvo-Herranz
(E)
Carol Lorencio
(C)
Amparo Peredes
(A)
Juan Carlos Yébenes-Reyes
(JC)
Miguel Angel Garcia-Martinez
(MA)
Manuel Cervera
(M)
Maria Luisa Bordejé
(ML)
Juan Franscisco Fernadez-Ortega
(JF)
Inmaculada Fernández-González
(I)
Arthur van Zanten
(A)
Albertus Beishuizen
(A)
Jeroen Schouten
(J)
Oscar Hoiting
(O)
Canisius Wilhelmina
(C)
Tom Stelfox
(T)
Juan Posadas
(J)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Clin Nutr. 2019 Feb;38(1):48-79
pubmed: 30348463
Nutr Clin Pract. 2010 Feb;25(1):16-25
pubmed: 20130154
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2014 Sep;58(8):914-22
pubmed: 24611520
J Crit Care. 2012 Jun;27(3):326.e1-8
pubmed: 22226423
JAMA. 2013 Jan 16;309(3):249-56
pubmed: 23321763
Chest. 2005 Sep;128(3):1187-93
pubmed: 16162705
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016 Feb;40(2):156-8
pubmed: 26150411
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):380-398
pubmed: 28168570
Nutr Clin Pract. 2015 Feb;30(1):59-71
pubmed: 25524884
Dis Colon Rectum. 2013 Jul;56(7):888-97
pubmed: 23739196
Crit Care. 2010;14(5):228
pubmed: 20887636
Dig Dis Sci. 2007 Sep;52(9):2241-8
pubmed: 17436082
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2015 May;39(4):441-8
pubmed: 24637246
Neuroscience. 2003;120(2):443-53
pubmed: 12890514
Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2011 Jun 20;340(1):10-4
pubmed: 21459126
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016 Feb;40(2):159-211
pubmed: 26773077
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Jun;6(6):343-52
pubmed: 19434096
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016 Jan;40(1):45-51
pubmed: 25900319
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013 Sep;25(9):720-32
pubmed: 23910374
Intensive Care Med. 2010 Aug;36(8):1386-93
pubmed: 20232036
Gut. 2011 Oct;60(10):1336-43
pubmed: 21450697
Lancet. 2018 Jan 13;391(10116):133-143
pubmed: 29128300
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2010 Oct;22(10):1069-e281
pubmed: 20524987
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Apr;17(4):519-531
pubmed: 26906526
Crit Care Med. 2007 Feb;35(2):483-9
pubmed: 17205032
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2003 Sep-Oct;27(5):355-73
pubmed: 12971736
Am J Clin Nutr. 2016 May;103(5):1197-203
pubmed: 27030535
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014 Feb;26(2):264-71
pubmed: 24304447
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 21;355(25):2619-30
pubmed: 17182987
Hepat Med. 2010 Feb 23;2:33-8
pubmed: 24367207
Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R78
pubmed: 20429886