| Related Articles |
A multicenter, randomized, double-blind study of ulimorelin and metoclopramide in the treatment of critically ill patients with enteral feeding intolerance: PROMOTE trial.
Intensive Care Med. 2019 May;45(5):647-656
Authors: Heyland DK, van Zanten ARH, Grau-Carmona T, Evans D, Beishuizen A, Schouten J, Hoiting O, Bordejé ML, Krell K, Klein DJ, Gonzalez J, Perez A, Brown R, James J, Harris MS, Investigators of the PROMOTE LP101-CL-201 Trial
Abstract
PURPOSE: Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI.
METHODS: One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection.
RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.
PMID: 31062046 [PubMed - in process]