IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0245317.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The efficacy and safety of prokinetics in critically ill adults receiving gastric feeding tubes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Rong Peng
  • Hailong Li
  • Lijun Yang
  • Linan Zeng
  • Qiusha Yi
  • Peipei Xu
  • Xiangcheng Pan
  • Lingli Zhang

Abstract

Background: Intolerance to gastric feeding tubes is common among critically ill adults and may increase morbidity. Administration of prokinetics in the ICU is common. However, the efficacy and safety of prokinetics are unclear in critically ill adults with gastric feeding tubes. We conducted a systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of prokinetics for improving gastric feeding tube tolerance in critically ill adults. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by systematically searching the Medline, Cochrane and Embase databases. Two independent reviewers extracted the relevant data and assessed the quality of the studies. We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to rate the quality of the evidence. Results: Fifteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. A total of 10 RCTs involving 846 participants were eligible for the quantitative analysis. Most studies (10 of 13, 76.92%) showed that prokinetics had beneficial effects on feeding intolerance in critically ill adults. In critically ill adults receiving gastric feeding, prokinetic agents may reduce the ICU length of stay (MD -2.03, 95% CI -3.96, -0.10; P = 0.04; low certainty) and the hospital length of stay (MD -3.21, 95% CI -5.35, -1.06; P = 0.003; low certainty). However, prokinetics failed to improve the outcomes of reported adverse events and all-cause mortality. Conclusion: As a class of drugs, prokinetics may improve tolerance to gastric feeding to some extent in critically ill adults. However, the certainty of the evidence suggesting that prokinetics reduce the ICU or hospital length of stay is low. Prokinetics did not significantly decrease the risks of reported adverse events or all-cause mortality among critically ill adults.

Suggested Citation

  • Rong Peng & Hailong Li & Lijun Yang & Linan Zeng & Qiusha Yi & Peipei Xu & Xiangcheng Pan & Lingli Zhang, 2021. "The efficacy and safety of prokinetics in critically ill adults receiving gastric feeding tubes: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245317
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245317
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0245317&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0245317?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0245317. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.