title: Continuous enteral feeding counteracts preventive measures for gastric colonization in intensive care unit patients.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To test the influence of continuously administered enteral feeding on gastric pH and gastric colonization in patients receiving or not receiving topical antimicrobial prophylaxis of the oropharynx and stomach, including sucralfate as stress ulcer prophylaxis.
  
  
  METHODS
  Prospective, open trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two university hospital general intensive care units (ICUs).
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients (n = 95) with an ICU stay for at least 5 days.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-one patients received antimicrobial agents into the stomach and oropharynx in combination with sucralfate (1 g/6 hrs) as stress ulcer prophylaxis. Sixty-four other patients did not receive antimicrobial prophylaxis or sucralfate, but instead received gastric pH-increasing stress ulcer prophylactic agents, if indicated. Gastric colonization and gastric pH were measured on admission and subsequently at least two times a week. Forty-eight patients (14 receiving and 34 not receiving antimicrobial prophylaxis) received enteral feeding.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Both enteral feeding and gastric pH-increasing stress ulcer prophylaxis independently increased gastric pH: the risks for a gastric pH of > 3.5 were, respectively, 4.54 and 2.04 (odds ratios). Enteral feeding also increased the risk for gastric colonization by potentially pathogenic microorganisms (odds ratio = 4.52). Patients receiving both topical antimicrobial prophylaxis and sucralfate remained free of gastric colonization for a longer period than those patients receiving gastric pH-increasing stress ulcer prophylaxis. In these two groups, patients without enteral feeding remained free of gastric colonization for a longer period than those patients receiving enteral feeding.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Topical antimicrobial prophylaxis, including sucralfate, successfully prevented gastric colonization with potentially pathogenic microorganisms and was correlated with lower gastric pH values. However, the efficacy was markedly decreased when continuous enteral feeding was administered simultaneously.
authors.affiliation: Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Maastricht, The Netherlands.
authors.forename: M J
authors.initials: MJ
authors.lastname: Bonten
authors.forename: C A
authors.initials: CA
authors.lastname: Gaillard
authors.forename: F H
authors.initials: FH
authors.lastname: van Tiel
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: van der Geest
authors.forename: E E
authors.initials: EE
authors.lastname: Stobberingh
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage; D001419:Bacteria / Q000302:isolation & purification; D003131:Combined Modality Therapy; D003422:Critical Care / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D004750:Enteral Nutrition / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D005260:Female; D005745:Gastric Acidity Determination; D006801:Humans; D006863:Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009426:Netherlands / Q000453:epidemiology; D011446:Prospective Studies; D013270:Stomach / Q000382:microbiology*; D013276:Stomach Ulcer / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000382:microbiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D013312:Stress, Physiological / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000382:microbiology / Q000517:prevention & control
chemical_list: D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents