A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of ulimorelin and metoclopramide in the treatment of critically ill patients with enteral feeding intolerance: PROMOTE trial
Por:
Heyland, D, van Zanten, A, Grau-Carmona, T, Evans, D, Beishuizen, A, Schouten, J, Hoiting, O, Bordeje, M, Krell, K, Klein, D, Gonzalez, J, Perez, A, Brown, R, James, J, Harris, M, Jolley, S, Raines, R, Servia-Goixart, L, Perez-Quesada, S, Herrero-Meseguer, J, Calvo-Herranz, E, Lorencio, C, Peredes, A, Yebenes-Reyes, J, Garcia-Martinez, M, Cervera, M, Fernadez-Ortega, J, Fernandez-Gonzalez, I, van Zanten, A, Stelfox, T, Posadas, J and Investigators PROMTE LP101-CL-201
Publicada:
1 may 2019
Resumen:
PurposeEnteral 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.MethodsOne hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) 500ml. 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 5days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV500ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection.ResultsOne 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 5days 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.ConclusionsBoth prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.
Open Access
|