A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The effect of abdominal massage on enteral nutrition tolerance in patients on mechanical ventilation: A Randomized Controlled Study. | LitMetric

Objective: To assess whether abdominal massage impacts enteral feeding tolerance in mechanically ventilated patients.

Methods: Patients were randomized to receive standard or intervention care (standard care plus a 15-minute abdominal massage twice daily) for three days. We recorded the vomiting, reflux, gastric retention, aspiration, diarrhea, abdominal distension, gastric residual volume and abdominal circumference from days one to three. A P-value of less than 0.05 was statistically significant.

Results: Seventy-four patients (37 per group) were recruited (intervention vs control: age 58.03 ± 10.44 vs 55.33 ± 12.45 years; %M: 69.70 % vs 69.70 %). The aspiration, gastric retention and abdominal distension incidence in the intervention group was 3.03 %, 6.06 % and 9.09 %, whereas in the control group it was 24.24 %, 30.30 % and 27.27 % (P <.05). The vomiting, reflux and diarrhea incidence for patients in the intervention group were all 3.03 %, whereas in the control group they were 3.03 %, 9.09 % and 9.09 % (P >.05). From day 1 to day 3, the gastric residual volume decreased from 87.23 ± 3.29 mL to 72.59 ± 5.40 mL in the intervention group and increased from 91.94 ± 3.45 mL to 105.00 ± 6.94 mL in the control group. Similarly, the abdominal circumference decreased from 84.41 ± 1.73 cm to 82.44 ± 1.73 cm in the intervention group and increased from 87.90 ± 1.60 cm to 88.90 ± 1.75 cm in the control group. The differences in time, group, and interaction effects between the two groups were statistically significant for abdominal circumference and gastric residual volume (P <.05).

Conclusions: Abdominal massage can effectively reduce gastric retention, abdominal distension, aspiration, gastric residual volume and abdominal circumference in mechanically ventilated patients, but not the incidence of vomiting, reflux and diarrhea.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2022.103371DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

abdominal massage
12
gastric residual
12
residual volume
12
abdominal circumference
12
intervention group
12
control group
12
abdominal
8
gastric retention
8
abdominal distension
8
group
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!