FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2143676871> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2143676871 endingPage "1457" @default.
• W2143676871 startingPage "1446" @default.
• W2143676871 abstract "Objective To determine whether the implementation of a nutritional management protocol in the ICU leads to the increased use of enteral nutrition, earlier feeding, and improved clinical outcomes in patients. Design Prospective evaluation of critically ill patients before and after the introduction of an evidence-based guideline for providing nutritional support in the ICU. Setting The medical-surgical ICUs of two teaching hospitals. Patients Two hundred critically ill adult patients who remained npo > 48 h after their admission to the ICU. One hundred patients were enrolled into the preimplementation group, and 100 patients were enrolled in the postimplementation group. Intervention Implementation of an evidence-based ICU nutritional management protocol. Measurement and results Nutritional outcome measures included the number of patients who received enteral nutrition, the time to initiate nutritional support, and the percent caloric target administered on day 4 of nutritional support. Clinical outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and in-hospital length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality rates. Patients in the postimplementation group were fed more frequently via the enteral route (78% vs 68%, respectively; p = 0.08), and this difference was statistically significant after adjusting for severity of illness, baseline nutritional status, and other factors (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 5.0; p = 0.009). The time to feeding and the caloric intake on day 4 of nutritional support were not different between the groups. The mean (± SD) duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the postimplementation group (17.9 ± 31.3 vs 11.2 ± 19.5 days, respectively; p = 0.11), and this difference was statistically significant after adjusting for age, gender, severity of illness, type of admission, baseline nutritional status, and type of nutritional support (p = 0.03). There was no difference in ICU or hospital LOS between the two groups. The risk of death was 56% lower in patients who received enteral nutrition (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.80; p = 0.007). Conclusion An evidence-based nutritional management protocol increased the likelihood that ICU patients would receive enteral nutrition, and shortened their duration of mechanical ventilation. Enteral nutrition was associated with a reduced risk of death in those patients studied. To determine whether the implementation of a nutritional management protocol in the ICU leads to the increased use of enteral nutrition, earlier feeding, and improved clinical outcomes in patients. Prospective evaluation of critically ill patients before and after the introduction of an evidence-based guideline for providing nutritional support in the ICU. The medical-surgical ICUs of two teaching hospitals. Two hundred critically ill adult patients who remained npo > 48 h after their admission to the ICU. One hundred patients were enrolled into the preimplementation group, and 100 patients were enrolled in the postimplementation group. Implementation of an evidence-based ICU nutritional management protocol. Nutritional outcome measures included the number of patients who received enteral nutrition, the time to initiate nutritional support, and the percent caloric target administered on day 4 of nutritional support. Clinical outcomes included the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and in-hospital length of stay (LOS), and in-hospital mortality rates. Patients in the postimplementation group were fed more frequently via the enteral route (78% vs 68%, respectively; p = 0.08), and this difference was statistically significant after adjusting for severity of illness, baseline nutritional status, and other factors (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 5.0; p = 0.009). The time to feeding and the caloric intake on day 4 of nutritional support were not different between the groups. The mean (± SD) duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter in the postimplementation group (17.9 ± 31.3 vs 11.2 ± 19.5 days, respectively; p = 0.11), and this difference was statistically significant after adjusting for age, gender, severity of illness, type of admission, baseline nutritional status, and type of nutritional support (p = 0.03). There was no difference in ICU or hospital LOS between the two groups. The risk of death was 56% lower in patients who received enteral nutrition (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.80; p = 0.007). An evidence-based nutritional management protocol increased the likelihood that ICU patients would receive enteral nutrition, and shortened their duration of mechanical ventilation. Enteral nutrition was associated with a reduced risk of death in those patients studied." @default.
• W2143676871 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2143676871 creator A5016038499 @default.
• W2143676871 creator A5036657680 @default.
• W2143676871 creator A5065633703 @default.
• W2143676871 creator A5074898271 @default.
• W2143676871 creator A5077815316 @default.
• W2143676871 date "2004-04-01" @default.
• W2143676871 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2143676871 title "Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients Before and After the Implementation of an Evidence-Based Nutritional Management Protocol" @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1484192189 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1608246244 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1868458518 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1971607889 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1973022658 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1973190453 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1975598565 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1977389762 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1983020162 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1984905815 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1986296624 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1993431422 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1994307831 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1995131286 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W1996653305 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2001199812 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2003978593 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2005705334 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2008956459 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2011514026 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2012222955 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2019153621 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2020939559 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2022856609 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2037663744 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2037798779 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2039689392 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2041054598 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2042705140 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2043556543 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2044917182 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2045064077 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2046371311 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2048180684 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2051933815 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2054093970 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2058000687 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2059609017 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2061288463 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2062046973 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2063010414 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2074218333 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2079069898 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2079113651 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2080262569 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2081798466 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2082490493 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2091742375 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2092606854 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2095414347 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2101046905 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2102749339 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2110788511 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2329099000 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2548340370 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2911622107 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W4247943214 @default.
• W2143676871 cites W2566477441 @default.
• W2143676871 doi "https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.125.4.1446" @default.
• W2143676871 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15078758" @default.
• W2143676871 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2143676871 type Work @default.
• W2143676871 sameAs 2143676871 @default.
• W2143676871 citedByCount "379" @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712012 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712013 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712014 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712015 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712016 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712017 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712018 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712019 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712020 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712021 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712022 @default.
• W2143676871 countsByYear W21436768712023 @default.
• W2143676871 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2143676871 hasAuthorship W2143676871A5016038499 @default.
• W2143676871 hasAuthorship W2143676871A5036657680 @default.
• W2143676871 hasAuthorship W2143676871A5065633703 @default.
• W2143676871 hasAuthorship W2143676871A5074898271 @default.
• W2143676871 hasAuthorship W2143676871A5077815316 @default.
• W2143676871 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2143676871 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2143676871 hasConcept C148257392 @default.
• W2143676871 hasConcept C156957248 @default.
• W2143676871 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2143676871 hasConcept C188816634 @default.

• next