中国实用护理杂志
中國實用護理雜誌
중국실용호리잡지
Chinese Journal of Practical Nursing
2015年
30期
2310-2314
,共5页
韦秀霞%庄一渝%彭剑英%张秀伟
韋秀霞%莊一渝%彭劍英%張秀偉
위수하%장일투%팽검영%장수위
插管法,胃肠%Meta 分析%肠内营养
插管法,胃腸%Meta 分析%腸內營養
삽관법,위장%Meta 분석%장내영양
Intubation,gastrointestinal%Meta-analysis%Enteral nutrition
目的:评价间歇鼻饲对重症患者肠内营养的效果。方法检索 Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、JBI 图书馆、中国知网、维普期刊网和万方数据库,收集间歇鼻饲对患者肠内营养效果的随机对照试验。由2位研究者进行文献筛选、资料提取及质量评价,并以 RevMan 5.2软件进行统计处理。结果纳入文献9篇,包括558例患者。 Meta 分析结果显示,间歇鼻饲在降低便秘发生率方面优于持续鼻饲,OR=0.32,95%CI 0.14~0.71,P<0.05,差异有统计学意义;而在腹泻、吸入性肺炎、胃潴留、呕吐、腹胀发生率、营养效果方面2组比较,差异均无统计学意义,P>0.05。结论间歇鼻饲与持续鼻饲并不影响腹泻、吸入性肺炎、胃潴留、呕吐、腹胀的发生率和营养效果,而间歇鼻饲对于降低便秘的发生有较好的效果。
目的:評價間歇鼻飼對重癥患者腸內營養的效果。方法檢索 Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、JBI 圖書館、中國知網、維普期刊網和萬方數據庫,收集間歇鼻飼對患者腸內營養效果的隨機對照試驗。由2位研究者進行文獻篩選、資料提取及質量評價,併以 RevMan 5.2軟件進行統計處理。結果納入文獻9篇,包括558例患者。 Meta 分析結果顯示,間歇鼻飼在降低便祕髮生率方麵優于持續鼻飼,OR=0.32,95%CI 0.14~0.71,P<0.05,差異有統計學意義;而在腹瀉、吸入性肺炎、胃潴留、嘔吐、腹脹髮生率、營養效果方麵2組比較,差異均無統計學意義,P>0.05。結論間歇鼻飼與持續鼻飼併不影響腹瀉、吸入性肺炎、胃潴留、嘔吐、腹脹的髮生率和營養效果,而間歇鼻飼對于降低便祕的髮生有較好的效果。
목적:평개간헐비사대중증환자장내영양적효과。방법검색 Cochrane Library、PubMed、EMbase、Web of Science、JBI 도서관、중국지망、유보기간망화만방수거고,수집간헐비사대환자장내영양효과적수궤대조시험。유2위연구자진행문헌사선、자료제취급질량평개,병이 RevMan 5.2연건진행통계처리。결과납입문헌9편,포괄558례환자。 Meta 분석결과현시,간헐비사재강저편비발생솔방면우우지속비사,OR=0.32,95%CI 0.14~0.71,P<0.05,차이유통계학의의;이재복사、흡입성폐염、위저류、구토、복창발생솔、영양효과방면2조비교,차이균무통계학의의,P>0.05。결론간헐비사여지속비사병불영향복사、흡입성폐염、위저류、구토、복창적발생솔화영양효과,이간헐비사대우강저편비적발생유교호적효과。
Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness of intermittent nasogastric feeding on enteral nutrition of critical patients. Methods The relevant randomized controlled trials were searched in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, JBI Library and the databases of China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Scientific Journal Database by VIP (VIP), Wanfang Database. The studies were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. Meta- analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.2. Results Nine RCTs were included involving 558 patients. The results of meta- analysis showed that intermittent nasogastric feeding was greater than continuous pump feeding in the incidence of constipation, OR=0.32, 95%CI 0.14~0.71, P<0.05, the difference was significant. However, they were alike in the incidences of diarrhea, aspiration pneumonia, gastric residuals, vomiting, abdominal distension and effects of nutrition, there was no statistical difference (P>0.05). Conclusions Intermittent nasogastric feeding and continuous pump feeding did not affect the incidence of diarrhea, aspiration pneumonia, gastric residuals, vomiting, abdominal distension and the effects of nutrition. However, the incidence of constipation was significantly less in patients receiving intermittent nasogastric feeding.