Published online Oct 27, 2016. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v8.i10.700
Peer-review started: April 10, 2016
First decision: June 6, 2016
Revised: June 19, 2016
Accepted: August 6, 2016
Article in press: August 8, 2016
Published online: October 27, 2016
To compare a dipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formula with a standard enteral formula for tolerance and nutritional outcomes in abdominal surgery patients.
A retrospective study was performed to assess the differences between a whole-protein formula (WPF) and a dipeptide- and tripeptide-based formula (PEF) in clinical outcomes. Seventy-two adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with serum albumin concentrations less than 3.0 g/dL were enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into two groups (WPF group = 40 patients, PEF group = 32 patients). The study patients were fed for at least 7 d, with ≥ 1000 mL of enteral formula infused on at least 3 of the days.
The mean serum albumin level on postoperative day (POD) 10, prealbumin levels on POD-5 and POD-10, and total lymphocyte count on POD-5 were significantly higher in the PEF group compared to those in the WPF group (P < 0.05). The average maximum gastric residual volume of the PEF patients during their ICU stays was significantly lower than that for WPF patients.
Dipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formulas are more efficacious and better tolerated than whole-protein formulas.
Core tip: Few trials thus far have investigated the benefits of dipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formulas for abdominal surgery patients. The results of the present study suggest that dipeptide- and tripeptide-based enteral formulas are more efficacious and better tolerated than whole-protein formulas and could shorten the intensive care unit stays of malnourished abdominal surgery patients.