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
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.2022.103371 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!