PD247 - PROJECT DARPAN ICU 2: ENTERAL FEEDING INTERRUPTIONS IN INDIAN ICUS: A MAJOR BARRIER TO NUTRITIONAL ADEQUACY- FINDINGS FROM A NATIONWIDE PRACTICE SURVEY

PD247

PROJECT DARPAN ICU 2: ENTERAL FEEDING INTERRUPTIONS IN INDIAN ICUS: A MAJOR BARRIER TO NUTRITIONAL ADEQUACY- FINDINGS FROM A NATIONWIDE PRACTICE SURVEY

Y. Mehta¹, R. Reddy Chada², A. S. Ansari³, H. GUNAVANTHI JAYAKUMAR^4,*, B. Samant⁵, A. Chattopadhyay⁶, E. Canday⁷, K. V⁸, S. Sonawale⁹, N. Joshi⁹

¹Critical Care, Medanta The Medicity, Gurgaon, ²Dietetics, AIG Hospital, Hyderabad, ³Critical Care, Nanavati Max Hospital, Mumbai, ⁴Critical Care, Apollo Hospital, Bangalore, ⁵Dietetics, Kokilaben Dhirubai Ambani Hospital, Mumbai, ⁶Critical Care, CMRI Hospital, Kolkata, ⁷Dietetics, Sir H. N. Reliance Foundation Hospital, Mumbai, ⁸Dietetics, PSG Institute of Medical Science, Coimbatore, ⁹Medical & Scientific Affairs, Dr. Reddy's & Nestle Health Science, Mumbai, India

Rationale: Evidence shows EFI (Enteral Feeding Intolerance)¹ and interruptions due to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures² are key reasons for poor nutrition adequacy. Currently, there are no national data in India on feeding interruptions. This nationwide survey aims to capture various aspects of feeding interruptions in Indian ICUs.

Methods: Data were collected from a nationwide practice survey involving ICU healthcare professionals across India, with 378 responses from 280 hospitals in 62 cities. The survey assessed reasons, frequency, and management of feeding interruptions.

Results: About 53% of respondents reported that less than 60% of ICU patients receive the recommended amount of nutrition on any given day. Feeding interruptions were key reasons for poor adequacy and suboptimal nutrition delivery, with enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) and diagnostic/therapeutic procedures ranked as the top two reasons by 28% and 27% of respondents, respectively. Thirty‑two percent of respondents reported routinely monitoring GRV despite guideline recommendations against it and cited this as a major reason for withholding feeding. The top three EFI management strategies included adjusting infusion rate/volume, using peptide‑based formulas, and starting prokinetics.

Conclusion: Minimizing avoidable interruptions, optimizing peri‑procedural feeding practices, and implementing strategies to compensate the daily calorie & protein deficit due to feeding interruptions are critical to improving nutritional adequacy and patient outcomes.

References: 1) Heyland DK et al. JCrit Care Med. 2021;49(1):49-59.

2) Kasti AN,  et al.  Nutrients. 2023;15(4):917

Disclosure of Interest: None declared