ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Nutrition support is an essential part of critical care medicine. It is commonly accepted that for the critically ill patient, enteral nutrition (EN) is favored. For the patient who receives neuromuscular blockades, EN may be held, or initiation delayed, because of concerns for EN intolerance. We hypothesized there would be no difference in EN tolerance between groups receiving cisatracurium while receiving EN compared with those not receiving cisatracurium. METHODS: This was a retrospective study that included 459 patients from a combined medical and surgical intensive care unit. There were 44 patients who received cisatracurium with EN and 415 who received EN alone. Data collected included gastric residual volume (GRV) and emesis occurrences, new-onset abdominal pain, new or worsening abdominal distention, and bowel ischemia. RESULTS: There were more patients with new or worsening abdominal distention in the group receiving cisatracurium (31.82% vs 14.94%; P < 0.01) as well as occurrences of GRV > 300 ml (P < 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding emesis, new-onset abdominal pain, or bowel ischemia. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that it is acceptable to provide patients with EN who are receiving cisatracurium.
ABSTRACT
Indigenous populations have been disproportionally affected by COVID-19, particularly those in rural and remote locations. Their unique environments and risk factors demand an equally unique public health response. Our rural Native American community experienced one of the highest prevalence outbreaks in the world, and we developed an aggressive management strategy that appears to have had a considerable effect on mortality reduction. The results have implications far beyond pandemic response, and have reframed how our community addresses several complicated health challenges. (Am J Public Health. 2021;111(11):1939-1941. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306472).