THE DOCTOR NOTES

Enteral nutrition was source help was chosen to the patient was sick critical with the function of the channel dissolved that was acceptable and could not eat orally.
Despite giving of nutrition in an intermitten manner more physiological than giving continued, the two therapeutic techniques that often were practiced to the critical patient.
The giving profit continued versus intermitten uptil now still was covered by the controversy.

In this controversy had several rumours:

1. Did giving continue gave results of the better end? The fact is, until now, clinical proof did not show the existence of the difference in mortality.
2. Had the difference in the diarrhoea complication, the frequency of giving ate that disturbed or the percentage of the amount of food that could enter from the amount of food that was needed? The fact is, there was no difference in diarrhoea, the frequency of giving of food that was disrupted or percentage the amount of food that could enter from the amount of food needed between the patient with accepted nutrition in a manner continued versus intermitten.

As the conclusion, now did not yet have the data that was enough to make the recommendation for nutrition enteral to the patient was sick critical, was given in a manner continued or in an intermitten manner.

(copied from paper S.Sunatrio from the Symposium and Workshop Chest and Critical Internal Medicine, 28-30 March 2008, Jakarta)

© 2008 – 2009, Alloen Endonesia. All Rights Reserved.

Related Notes:

• SAATNYA MENGGUGAT KKI..?
• KOMPETENSI DOKTER LAYANAN PRIMER