Preferences on the Use of Prokinetic Agents in Adult Intensive Care Unit Patients-An International Survey

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[Crone V] Department of Intensive Care, Holbæk Hospital, Holbæk, Denmark. [Møller MH] Department of Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. [Alhazzani W] Health Research Centre, Ministry of Defence Health Services, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Critical Care and Internal Medicine Department, College of Medicine, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia. [Grønningsæter L] Department of Anesthesiology, Division of Emergencies and Critical Care, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. [Al-Fares A] Department of Anaesthesia, Critical Care Medicine and Pain Medicine, Al-Amiri Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait City, Kuwait. [Hästbacka J] Department of Intensive Care, Tampere University Hospital, Wellbeing Services County of Pirkanmaa and Tampere University, Tampere, Finland. [Ferrer R] Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. Grup de Recerca de Shock, Disfunció Orgànica i Ressuscitació, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain. Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2025-06-05T10:12:46Z

2025-06-05T10:12:46Z

2025-07



Abstract

Intensive care; Prokinetic agents; Survey


Cures intensives; Agents procinètics; Enquesta


Cuidados intensivos; Agentes procinéticos; Encuesta


Introduction Feeding intolerance complicates enteral nutrition in intensive care unit (ICU) patients but is poorly defined. Prokinetic agents are administered to facilitate the uptake of enteral nutrition, but preferences for their use among clinicians in ICUs are unknown. Methods We conducted an international electronic survey targeting ICU doctors. The survey included 76 questions that focused on symptoms considered when assessing feeding intolerance, preferences for using prokinetic agents, and willingness to participate in a future randomised trial on prokinetic agents. Results We received 830 responses from 17 countries, with an overall response rate of 29%. Most respondents were specialists working in mixed ICUs. Feeding intolerance was assessed by 90% of respondents in their clinical work, though only 36% considered it well defined. Gastric residual volume and vomiting were symptoms most frequently used for defining feeding intolerance. Metoclopramide was the preferred prokinetic agent (54% of respondents), followed by erythromycin (42%). Four out of five considered using combination therapy, primarily a combination of metoclopramide and erythromycin (89%). Concerns about side effects were reported for all agents, with extrapyramidal symptoms and QT prolongation being the most common across agents. The majority (91%) of respondents supported a future randomised trial comparing prokinetic agents to placebo. Conclusion This international survey found practice variations in the symptoms reportedly used to assess feeding intolerance. Metoclopramide was the preferred prokinetic agent, followed by erythromycin. Most respondents supported a future randomised trial.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

Wiley

Related items

Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica;69(6)

https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70045

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)