Peptide-based enteral formula improves tolerance and clinical outcomes in abdominal surgery patients relative to a whole protein enteral formula

Table 1 Comparison of demographic and clinical characteristics between the whole-protein formula group and the dipeptide- and tripeptide-based formula group

	WPF group	PEF group	P-value
n	40	32
Gender (Male/Female)	23/17	19/13	0.873
Feeding route (PEG1/NG2)	2/38	3-29	0.468
Major diagnoses
Esophageal cancer	4	5	0.473
Colon cancer	22	16	0.673
Gastric cancer (subtotal gastrectomy)	2	3	0.468
Bile duct cancer	4	2	0.567
Ischemic bowel	8	6	0.894
Age	67.5 ± 10.5	64.7 ± 10.1	0.263
APACHE II score	11.6 ± 2.3	12.4 ± 2.6	0.201
Ventilator dependence, n (%)	15 (37.5)	13 (40.6)	0.787
Body mass index	22.3 ± 2.1	21.9 ± 2.2	0.398

¹Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy;

²Naso-gastric tube. Values are presented as number of patients or mean ± SD. WPF: Whole-protein formula; PEF: Dipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formula.