Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:49:03.965Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Enteral-tube-feeding diarrhoea: manipulating the colonic microbiota with probiotics and prebiotics

BAPEN Symposium 2 on ‘Pre- and probiotics’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2007

Kevin Whelan*
Affiliation:
Nutritional Sciences Division, King's College London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NN, UK
*
Corresponding author: Dr Kevin Whelan, fax +44 20 78 48 41 85, email [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Diarrhoea is a common and serious complication of enteral tube feeding. Its pathogenesis involves antibiotic prescription, enteropathogenic colonization and abnormal colonic responses, all of which involve an interaction with the colonic microbiota. Alterations in the colonic microbiota have been identified in patients receiving enteral tube feeding and these changes may be associated with the incidence of diarrhoea. Preventing negative alterations in the colonic microbiota has therefore been investigated as a method of reducing the incidence of diarrhoea. Probiotics and prebiotics may be effective because of their suppression of enteropathogenic colonization, stimulation of immune function and modulation of colonic metabolism. Randomized controlled trials of probiotics have produced contrasting results, although Saccharomyces boulardii has been shown to reduce the incidence of diarrhoea in patients in the intensive care unit receiving enteral tube feeding. Prebiotic fructo-oligosaccharides have been shown to increase the concentration of faecal bifidobacteria in healthy subjects consuming enteral formula, although this finding has not yet been confirmed in patients receiving enteral tube feeding. Furthermore, there are no clinical trials investigating the effect of a prebiotic alone on the incidence of diarrhoea. Further trials of the efficacy of probiotics and prebiotics, alone and in combination, in preventing diarrhoea in this patient group are warranted.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2007

Abbreviations:
CDAD

Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea

ETF

enteral tube feeding

FOS

fructo-oligosaccharides

ICU

intensive care unit

Enteral tube feeding (ETF) is a method of artificial nutritional support for patients who are unable to achieve their nutritional requirements through an oral diet. Although recent data on its use in general hospitalized patients are scarce, a national survey in 1994 has reported that each hospital in the UK provided ETF to an average of 213 patients per year (Payne-James et al. Reference Payne-James, De Gara, Grimble and Silk1995). ETF is used increasingly in the intensive care unit (ICU), where ⩽77% of patients receive ETF (Preiser et al. Reference Preiser, Berre, Carpentier, Jolliet, Pichard, Van Gossum and Vincent1999), and in the community, where in the UK between 20 000 and 25 000 patients currently receive ETF (Elia, Reference Elia2003).

Alterations in faecal output can occur during ETF that result in the diagnosis of diarrhoea. The incidence of diarrhoea reported in the literature ranges from 2% (Cataldi-Betcher et al. Reference Cataldi-Betcher, Seltzer, Slocum and Jones1983) to 95% (DeMeo et al. Reference DeMeo, Kolli, Keshavarzian, Borton, Al-Hosni and Dyavanapalli1998) of patients. This wide range of incidence is a result of differences in the patient groups investigated and differences in the definition of diarrhoea used. One review of the literature (Lebak et al. Reference Lebak, Bliss, Savik and Patten-Marsh2003) has identified the use of thirty-three different definitions of diarrhoea in studies of ETF.

Diarrhoea during ETF may result in a number of problematic complications. For example, patients may develop fluid and electrolyte abnormalities and require fluid support or anti-diarrhoeal medication (Stroud et al. Reference Stroud, Duncan and Nightingale2003). Patients with diarrhoea are at greater risk of faecal incontinence (Bliss et al. Reference Bliss, Johnson, Savik, Clabots and Gerding2000), which may contribute to infection of surgical or pressure wounds. However, there is limited evidence that diarrhoea impedes formula delivery in patients in the ICU (Reid, Reference Reid2006) or in general hospital wards (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Hill, Preedy, Judd and Taylor2006b) who receive ETF. Furthermore, although diarrhoea during ETF may seem unpleasant, there is little information about the burden of diarrhoea to the patient, the nurse or the carer. Indeed, in a study of patients receiving ETF via percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy at home, only a small minority of patients perceived diarrhoea to be a major difficulty (Brotherton et al. Reference Brotherton, Abbott and Aggett2006). Further investigation of the impact of diarrhoea on the patient receiving ETF is required.

Diarrhoea is a common and problematic complication during ETF. The aim of the present review is to discuss the pathogenesis of diarrhoea during ETF, with a particular focus on the colonic microbiota, and to discuss the use of probiotics and prebiotics in the prevention of diarrhoea during ETF.

Pathogenesis of diarrhoea during enteral tube feeding

Several factors have been identified that contribute to the pathogenesis of diarrhoea in patients receiving ETF, including antibiotic prescription, enteropathogenic colonization and abnormal colonic responses to ETF.

Antibiotic prescription is common in the hospital setting, with one study (Bliss et al. Reference Bliss, Johnson, Savik, Clabots, Willard and Gerding1998) reporting that 93% of patients receiving ETF were also prescribed at least one antibiotic. Some prospective studies in patients receiving ETF (Keohane et al. Reference Keohane, Atrill, Love, Frost and Silk1984; Guenter et al. Reference Guenter, Settle, Perlmutter, Marino, DeSimone and Rolandelli1991; Bleichner et al. Reference Bleichner, Blehaut, Mentec and Moyse1997) report the incidence of diarrhoea to be higher in those patients prescribed antibiotics than in those not prescribed antibiotics, whilst other studies (Kelly et al. Reference Kelly, Patrick and Hillman1983; Schultz et al. Reference Schultz, Ashby-Hughes, Taylor, Gillis and Wilkins2000) report no difference in the incidence of diarrhoea. One potential explanation for these conflicting results may be that it is not antibiotic prescription per se, but the duration of antibiotic prescription that is relevant. An association between the duration of antibiotic prescription and the incidence of diarrhoea has been demonstrated in studies in hospitalized patients (Wistrom et al. Reference Wistrom, Norrby, Myhre, Eriksson, Granstrom, Lagergren, Englund, Nord and Svenungsson2001) and those receiving ETF (Heimburger et al. Reference Heimburger, Sockwell and Geels1994).

Enteropathogenic colonization, particularly with Clostridium difficile, is also a cause of diarrhoea during ETF. Clostridium difficile is a Gram-positive spore-forming enteropathogen that can cause C. difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD) and pseudomembranous colitis (Mylonakis et al. Reference Mylonakis, Ryan and Calderwood2001). One prospective cohort study of residents in a long-term care facility (Simor et al. Reference Simor, Yake and Tsimidis1993) has demonstrated that ETF is an independent risk factor for C. difficile colonization (OR 6·5, P=0·006). Meanwhile, a case–control study of seventy-six patients receiving ETF who were matched for age, ward and disease severity with seventy-six patients not receiving ETF (Bleichner et al. Reference Bleichner, Blehaut, Mentec and Moyse1997) has demonstrated that ETF is a risk factor for C. difficile colonization (OR 3·1, P=0·03) and CDAD (OR 9·0, P=0·049).

The causes of an increased risk of enteropathogenic colonization are unclear. One suggestion is that contamination of the enteral formula may be responsible. Contamination has been associated with decanting of formula (Beattie & Anderton, Reference Beattie and Anderton2001), the absence of adequate quality-control protocols (Oliveira et al. Reference Oliveira, Batista and Aidoo2001) and home ETF (Anderton et al. Reference Anderton, Nwoguh, McKune, Morrison, Greig and Clark1993). However, there is contrasting evidence of a link between formula contamination and enteropathogenic colonization or diarrhoea. For example, one prospective cohort study of twenty-five patients receiving ETF (Okuma et al. Reference Okuma, Nakamura, Totake and Fukunaga2000) has demonstrated that those patients with diarrhoea (n 2) are more likely to be receiving contaminated formula, whereas other studies (Belknap et al. Reference Belknap, Davidson and Flournoy1990; Mathus-Vliegen et al. Reference Mathus-Vliegen, Binnekade and de Haan2000) have found no such association. In addition, the redesign of formula delivery systems has dramatically reduced exogenous contamination (McKinlay et al. Reference McKinlay, Wildgoose, Wood, Gould and Anderton2001), indicating that any remaining contamination is now likely to be endogenous (e.g. retrograde contamination from the patient's stomach or lungs; Mathus-Vliegen et al. Reference Mathus-Vliegen, Bredius and Binnekade2006). Further research is required to identify the exact causes of enteropathogenic colonization in patients receiving ETF.

Abnormal colonic responses to ETF have been demonstrated in a number of in vivo segmental colonic perfusion studies. For example, intra-gastric ETF causes an abnormal secretion of water into the ascending colon (Bowling et al. Reference Bowling, Raimundo, Grimble and Silk1994), which in the absence of compensatory absorptive mechanisms is likely to contribute to diarrhoea. Interestingly, when SCFA are infused into the caecum this abnormal water secretion is reversed (Bowling et al. Reference Bowling, Raimundo, Grimble and Silk1993).

The mechanism of this abnormal colonic water secretion is still unclear, but is likely to involve neuro-humoral mechanisms initiated in the proximal gastrointestinal tract. The production of peptide YY, a polypeptide that promotes colonic water absorption (El-Salhy et al. Reference El-Salhy, Suhr and Danielsson2002), is not stimulated during intra-gastric ETF (Bowling & Silk, Reference Bowling and Silk1996). It has been suggested (Bowling & Silk, Reference Bowling and Silk1998) that whatever causes the abnormal colonic water secretion during intra-gastric ETF may be inhibited by peptide YY. Interestingly, an ileal infusion of SCFA stimulates peptide YY production (Cuche et al. Reference Cuche, Cuber and Malbert2000), thus providing a potential mechanism through which SCFA can reverse the abnormal colonic water secretion during ETF.

Antibiotic prescription, enteropathogenic colonization and abnormal colonic responses all contribute to the pathogenesis of diarrhoea in patients receiving ETF. Each of these mechanisms is likely to involve an interaction with the colonic microbiota. For example, concentrations of colonic microbiota (Sullivan et al. Reference Sullivan, Edlund and Nord2001) and SCFA (Clausen et al. Reference Clausen, Bonnen, Tvede and Mortensen1991) undergo substantial alterations during antibiotic prescription. The colonic microbiota may prevent enteropathogenic infection via colonization inhibition and competitive exclusion, whilst they also ferment carbohydrates and proteins to produce SCFA that reverse abnormal colonic water secretion. Thus, it is possible that alterations to the colonic microbiota are involved in the pathogenesis of diarrhoea in patients receiving ETF.

Enteral tube feeding and the colonic microbiota

The colonic microbiota is a complex and diverse microbial ecosystem. Although there may be >500 species present, forty different species contribute to approximately 99% of bacterial numbers (Mai & Morris, Reference Mai and Morris2004).

In view of their potential role in the pathogenesis of diarrhoea during ETF a number of studies have investigated the impact of enteral formula on the colonic microbiota of healthy subjects and of patients receiving ETF (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd, Preedy and Taylor2004a). However, many of these early studies report conflicting results, perhaps as a result of major methodological weaknesses, including small sample sizes, the additional use of enemas or laxatives and the reliance on traditional bacterial culture (Winitz et al. Reference Winitz, Adams, Seedman, Davis, Jayko and Hamilton1970; Attebery et al. Reference Attebery, Sutter and Finegold1972; Bornside & Cohn, Reference Bornside and Cohn1975). Thus, more-recent studies have sought to accurately quantify the effects of an enteral formula on the colonic microbiota.

One study of ten healthy subjects consuming standard (fibre-free) enteral formula as the only source of nutrition for 2 weeks (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd, Preedy, Simmering, Jann and Taylor2005) has demonstrated large reductions in faecal bacteria and total SCFA, acetate, propionate and butyrate concentrations, together with an increase in faecal pH. This reduction in total bacteria would be likely to reduce the ability of the colonic microbiota to perform colonization inhibition and competitive exclusion, whilst the reduction in SCFA may impact on colonocyte water absorption.

In another study (Schneider et al. Reference Schneider, Le Gall, Girard-Pipau, Piche, Pompei, Nano, Hebuterne and Rampal2000) eight patients receiving long-term standard ETF were shown to have higher concentrations of aerobes, lower concentrations of anaerobes and yet similar concentrations of faecal SCFA compared with ten healthy controls. However, this difference in aerobe:anaerobe may be partly explained by differences in age between the patients and the controls (Hopkins et al. Reference Hopkins, Sharp and Macfarlane2001).

Enteral formula may therefore result in alterations to the colonic microbiota. Such alterations have been shown in some studies to be associated with the incidence of diarrhoea in patients receiving ETF. For example, the resolution of diarrhoea in twenty patients receiving ETF was shown to result in a reduction in the concentration of faecal aerobes and an increase in the concentrations of total faecal SCFA, acetate and propionate following supplementation with ⩽28 g galactomannan soluble fibre/d (Nakao et al. Reference Nakao, Ogura, Satake, Ito, Iguchi, Takagi and Nabeshima2002). However, whether these changes are associated with the resolution of diarrhoea or the treatment with galactomannan, or are merely a result of less-dilute faeces is unclear (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd and Taylor2002). More recently, a study of twenty patients in general hospital wards (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd, Tuohy, Gibson, Preedy and Taylor2004b) has demonstrated no systematic changes in the major faecal bacteria during the first 2 weeks of standard ETF. However, higher concentrations of faecal clostridia were reported in those patients who developed diarrhoea and there was a trend towards lower concentrations of bifidobacteria in those who developed diarrhoea or CDAD (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd, Tuohy, Gibson, Preedy and Taylor2004b). These differences in colonic microbiota may be directly involved in the pathogenesis of diarrhoea and CDAD during ETF, or may merely be indicative of antibiotic prescription.

Alterations in the colonic microbiota occur during ETF, and these changes may be associated with the incidence of diarrhoea. There has therefore been much interest in the use of probiotics and prebiotics to prevent such alterations in the colonic microbiota and to reduce the incidence of diarrhoea.

Probiotics in enteral tube feeding

A probiotic can be defined as a ‘preparation of, or a product containing, viable, defined micro-organisms in sufficient numbers, which alter the microbiota by implantation or colonization in a compartment of the host and by that exert beneficial health effects in this host’ (Schrezenmeir & de Vrese, Reference Schrezenmeir and de Vrese2001). Probiotic preparations and products most commonly contain strains of lactobacilli, bifidobacteria or saccharomyces, or mixtures of these strains. Probiotics should fulfill strict criteria before consideration for use in patients receiving ETF, including safety, viability during processing and storage, gastrointestinal survival and function (Tuomola et al. Reference Tuomola, Crittenden, Playne, Isolauri and Salminen2001).

Safety is an essential characteristic for probiotic use in patients receiving ETF and, although rare, a number of case reports of infection or sepsis following probiotic use have been reported (Munoz et al. Reference Munoz, Bouza, Cuenca-Estrella, Eiros, Perez, Sanchez-Somolinos, Rincon, Hortal and Pelaez2005). Those individuals at particular risk of probiotic sepsis include immuno-compromised patients, premature infants, patients with a central venous catheter and those in whom the probiotic is delivered via jejunostomy (Boyle et al. Reference Boyle, Robins-Browne and Tang2006). However, the clinical safety of Lactobacillus casei Shirota (107 colony-forming units/d) was demonstrated in twenty-eight paediatric patients in the ICU who received ETF, none of whom developed positive lactobacillus growth in any of the bodily fluids (e.g. blood, urine, endotracheal aspirates) or surface swabs (e.g. skin, central catheter tips) analysed (Srinivasan et al. Reference Srinivasan, Meyer, Padmanabhan and Britto2006).

Strain viability is also essential, particularly as the probiotic preparation may spend much time stored in hospital wards or in the patient's home or nursing home before use. In the UK some capsule and powdered probiotics have been shown to have low bacterial concentrations (Hamilton-Miller, Reference Hamilton-Miller1996; Hamilton-Miller et al. Reference Hamilton-Miller, Shah and Winkler1999), whereas in general fermented milks have been shown to have satisfactory bacterial concentrations even after storage (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Faiman, Hudspith and Bruce2006a).

A probiotic must also be able to survive gastrointestinal transit, as its major site of action is in the colon. Although a number of probiotics have been shown to survive gastrointestinal transit in healthy subjects, few studies have investigated survival in patients receiving ETF. The composition of the enteral formula and its mode of delivery may alter gastric acid (Hsu et al. Reference Hsu, Su, Huang, Lu and Tsai2006) and biliary secretions (O'Keefe et al. Reference O'Keefe, Lee, Anderson, Gennings, Abou-Assi, Clore, Heuman and Chey2003), both of which will impact on probiotic survival. Bifidobacetrium longum (5×109 colony-forming units/d, together with 2·5 g fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS)) when administered to seven patients receiving long-term standard ETF was found to result in an increase in faecal bifidobacteria in some, but not all, patients (Del Piano et al. Reference Del, Ballare, Montino, Orsello, Garello, Ferrari, Masini, Strozzi and Sforza2004). Meanwhile, in the study of paediatric patients receiving ETF on the ICU (Srinivasan et al. Reference Srinivasan, Meyer, Padmanabhan and Britto2006), Lactobacillus casei Shirota (107 colony-forming units/d) was shown to survive gastrointestinal transit in five of six patients tested.

Once a probiotic has survived gastrointestinal transit it must then function to reduce the incidence of diarrhoea, possibly through the suppression of enteropathogenic colonization, immune stimulation and modulation of colonic metabolism (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Gibson, Judd and Taylor2001; Table 1).

Table 1. Examples of potential mechanisms through which probiotics and prebiotics may prevent diarrhoea in patients receiving enteral tube feeding (ETF)

FOS, fructo-oligosaccharides.

In view of the mechanisms of diarrhoea during ETF, the alterations in colonic microbiota that may exist in these patients and the potential functions of probiotics (Table 1), a number of clinical trials have investigated the effect of probiotics in preventing diarrhoea in patients receiving ETF.

Heimburger et al. (Reference Heimburger, Sockwell and Geels1994) have conducted a randomized controlled trial in forty-one patients starting ETF. Eighteen patients were randomly assigned to receive Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus (1 g three times daily), with the remaining patients receiving an identically-packaged placebo (lactose and dextrose). However, when comparing patients in the probiotic group with those in the control group there were no significant differences in faecal weight or the incidence of diarrhoea (31 and 11% of patients developed diarrhoea respectively; P=0·21).

Bleichner et al. (Reference Bleichner, Blehaut, Mentec and Moyse1997) have conducted a multi-centre randomized controlled trial of 128 patients in the ICU starting ETF. Sixty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive Saccharomyces boulardii (500 mg four times daily), with the remaining patients receiving an identically-packaged placebo. There were 25% fewer diarrhoea days in those patients receiving S. boulardii compared with placebo (14 and 19% of patient days with diarrhoea respectively; P=0·0069).

The explanation for these contrasting results is likely to be a result of differences in methodology and the probiotic used. For example, Heimburger et al. (Reference Heimburger, Sockwell and Geels1994) measured the incidence as the percentage of patients with diarrhoea, rather than the preferred method of the percentage of patient days with diarrhoea (Bliss et al. Reference Bliss, Guenter and Settle1992) as used by Bleichner et al. (Reference Bleichner, Blehaut, Mentec and Moyse1997). Furthermore, lactobacilli produce lactate as the main fermentation product, whereas S. boulardii has been shown to increase faecal concentrations of total SCFA and butyrate in patients receiving long-term ETF (Schneider et al. Reference Schneider, Girard-Pipau, Filippi, Hebuterne, Moyse, Hinojosa, Pompei and Rampal2005).

Prebiotics in enteral tube feeding

A prebiotic is defined as a ‘non-digestible food ingredient that beneficially affects the host by selectively stimulating the growth and/or activity of one or a limited number of bacteria in the colon, and thus improving host health’ (Gibson & Roberfroid, Reference Gibson and Roberfroid1995). In order to be classified as a prebiotic a compound must resist digestion by human enzymes, undergo colonic fermentation and result in the selective growth of beneficial bacteria (Roberfroid, Reference Roberfroid2001).

The most extensively studied prebiotics are the FOS oligofructose and inulin. They are resistant to small intestinal digestion because of the inability of human gastrointestinal enzymes to hydrolyse the β2–1 glycosidic bonds between the fructose monomers (Oku & Nakamura, Reference Oku and Nakamura2003). FOS have therefore shown high recovery rates in ileostomy effluent (Ellegard et al. Reference Ellegard, Andersson and Bosaeus1997).

Although resistant to small-intestinal digestion, FOS are not recovered from the faeces of healthy subjects, suggesting rapid colonic fermentation (Alles et al. Reference Alles, Hautvast, Nagengast, Hartemink, Van Laere and Jansen1996). In vitro studies have demonstrated that FOS are fermented into lactate and acetate, some of which is then converted into butyrate (Morrison et al. Reference Morrison, Mackay, Edwards, Preston, Dodson and Weaver2006).

A number of studies have shown that FOS increase the concentration of faecal bifidobacteria when provided as a dietary supplement (Kolida et al. Reference Kolida, Tuohy and Gibson2002). Their selectivity in stimulating bifidobacterial growth is considered to be more effective than that of any of the other candidate prebiotics (Palframan et al. Reference Palframan, Gibson and Rastall2003).

The effect on the colonic microbiota of supplementing an enteral formula with FOS has been investigated in a number of studies in both healthy subjects and patients receiving ETF (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd, Preedy and Taylor2004a). Consumption of an enteral formula supplemented with FOS (10 g/l) was shown to result in an increase in faecal bifidobacteria in nine healthy subjects (Garleb et al. Reference Garleb, Snook, Marcon, Wolf and Johnson1996). Meanwhile, consumption of an enteral formula supplemented with short-chain FOS (5·1 g/l) and fibre (8·9 g/l) was found to result in an increase in bifidobacteria and a reduction in clostridia whilst maintaining faecal concentrations of total SCFA in ten healthy subjects (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd, Preedy, Simmering, Jann and Taylor2005). This finding is particularly important as patients with diarrhoea during ETF have been shown to have a trend towards lower concentrations of bifidobacteria, higher concentrations of clostridia (Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd, Tuohy, Gibson, Preedy and Taylor2004b) and lower concentrations of total SCFA (Nakao et al. Reference Nakao, Ogura, Satake, Ito, Iguchi, Takagi and Nabeshima2002).

Surprisingly, the promising effects of FOS on the colonic microbiota have not been confirmed in studies in patients receiving ETF. Schneider et al. (Reference Schneider, Girard-Pipau, Anty, van der Linde, Philipsen-Geerling, Knol, Filippi, Arab and Hebuterne2006) have conducted a prospective randomized cross-over trial in fifteen patients receiving long-term ETF. Formula supplemented with a mixture of fibres (including FOS at an intake of 2·4–3·8 g/d) was found to result in an increase in faecal concentrations of total bacteria and bacteroides, but had no effect on faecal bifidobacteria. It is possible that the quantity of FOS was insufficient to selectively stimulate growth of bifidobacteria (Bouhnik et al. Reference Bouhnik, Vahedi, Achour, Attar, Salfati, Pochart, Marteau, Flourie, Bornet and Rambaud1999). However, increases in acetate, butyrate and total SCFA were found following ETF with the fibre–FOS formula (Schneider et al. Reference Schneider, Girard-Pipau, Anty, van der Linde, Philipsen-Geerling, Knol, Filippi, Arab and Hebuterne2006).

Prebiotics that undergo colonic fermentation and stimulate the growth of bifidobacteria may, like probiotics, function to reduce the incidence of diarrhoea through the suppression of enteropathogenic colonization, immune stimulation and modulation of colonic metabolism (Table 1). For example, oligofructose has recently been shown to reduce the incidence of recurrent CDAD in hospitalized inpatients, albeit in those not receiving ETF (Lewis et al. Reference Lewis, Burmeister and Brazier2005).

Despite the existence of alterations in the colonic microbiota of patients with diarrhoea during ETF (Nakao et al. Reference Nakao, Ogura, Satake, Ito, Iguchi, Takagi and Nabeshima2002; Whelan et al. Reference Whelan, Judd, Tuohy, Gibson, Preedy and Taylor2004b) and the potential mechanisms through which prebiotics may prevent diarrhoea, there are few trials that have investigated the effect of prebiotics on its incidence. Those studies that have been conducted have used fibre formulas containing an additional but unspecified quantity of FOS (Vandewoude et al. Reference Vandewoude, Paridaens, Suy, Boone and Strobbe2005) or have used a compound with uncertain prebiotic characteristics (Spapen et al. Reference Spapen, Diltoer, Van Malderen, Opdenacker, Suys and Huyghens2001; Rushdi et al. Reference Rushdi, Pichard and Khater2004).

Vandewoude et al. (Reference Vandewoude, Paridaens, Suy, Boone and Strobbe2005) randomly assigned seventy older patients to receive an enteral formula containing fibre (30 g/d, including an unspecified amount of inulin) and eighty-five patients to receive a standard formula. The patients who received the fibre–inulin formula were found to have a lower faecal frequency (4·1 v. 6·3 faeces per week; P=0·008) and more formed faeces (31% v. 21% formed faeces; P=0·001) than the patients who received standard formula. However, this finding may be partly explained by the greater use of laxatives in the control group. A number of studies have demonstrated that guar gum (Rushdi et al. Reference Rushdi, Pichard and Khater2004) or partially-hydrolysed guar gum (Spapen et al. Reference Spapen, Diltoer, Van Malderen, Opdenacker, Suys and Huyghens2001) reduces the incidence of diarrhoea in patients receiving ETF. However, whether these compounds are able to selectively stimulate the growth of beneficial bacteria (e.g. bifidobacteria) in patients receiving ETF, and therefore can be defined as prebiotic, is uncertain.

Other effects of probiotics and prebiotics in enteral tube feeding

A number of randomized controlled trials in patients receiving ETF have investigated the effect of probiotics and prebiotics on clinical outcomes other than the incidence of diarrhoea. For example, probiotics have been shown to result in reductions in bacterial translocation following liver transplantation (Rayes et al. Reference Rayes, Seehofer, Theruvath, Schiller, Langrehr, Jonas, Bengmark and Neuhaus2005), pancreatic sepsis in patients with acute pancreatitis (Olah et al. Reference Olah, Belagyi, Issekutz, Gamal and Bengmark2002) and antibiotic prescription in patients following gastrointestinal surgery (Rayes et al. Reference Rayes, Hansen, Seehofer, Muller, Serke, Bengmark and Neuhaus2002). Only one of these studies (Rayes et al. Reference Rayes, Seehofer, Theruvath, Schiller, Langrehr, Jonas, Bengmark and Neuhaus2005) has measured the incidence of diarrhoea as an outcome, demonstrating no difference in incidence between patients receiving a formula supplemented with a prebiotic and those receiving a formula supplemented with both a probiotic and a prebiotic. However, the incidence of diarrhoea was not a primary outcome of this study and the criteria for its definition were not provided. Finally, a recent meta-analysis (Watkinson et al. Reference Watkinson, Barber, Dark and Young2007) has found that in the ICU the delivery of probiotics, prebiotics or both probiotics and prebiotics (synbiotics) has no impact on length of stay, mortality or the risk of nosocomial infections or pneumonia.

Conclusion

The pathogenesis of diarrhoea in patients receiving ETF involves an interaction between antibiotic prescription, enteropathogenic colonization, abnormal colonic responses and alterations in the colonic microbiota. Methods of manipulating the colonic microbiota may therefore reduce the incidence of diarrhoea in this patient group, and probiotics and prebiotics have been investigated to this end. However, conclusive results from clinical trials are lacking. The yeast S. boulardii has been shown to reduce the incidence of diarrhoea in patients in the ICU receiving ETF. However, although FOS have prebiotic effects in healthy subjects, their ability to increase faecal bifidobacteria and reduce the incidence of diarrhoea in patients receiving ETF has not been demonstrated. Thus, the recent Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition from the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition recommend that ‘a combination of different fibers, probiotics and prebiotics should be studied because of synergistic effects in different diseases’ (Lochs et al. Reference Lochs, Allison, Meier, Pirlich, Kondrup, Schneider, van den Berghe and Pichard2006).

Acknowledgement

The expert collaboration of Professor Victor R. Preedy (King's College London, London), Professor Patricia A. Judd (University of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancs.) and Dr Moira Taylor (University of Nottingham, Nottingham) is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Alles, MS, Hautvast, JG, Nagengast, FM, Hartemink, R, Van Laere, KM & Jansen, JB (1996) Fate of fructo-oligosaccharides in the human intestine. British Journal of Nutrition 76, 211221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderton, A, Nwoguh, CE, McKune, I, Morrison, L, Greig, M & Clark, B (1993) A comparative study of the numbers of bacteria present in enteral feeds prepared and administered in hospital and the home. Journal of Hospital Infection 23, 4349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Attebery, HR, Sutter, VL & Finegold, SM (1972) Effect of a partially chemically defined diet on normal human fecal flora. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 25, 13911398.Google Scholar
Beattie, TK & Anderton, A (2001) Decanting versus sterile pre-filled nutrient containers – the microbiological risks in enteral feeding. International Journal of Environmental Health Research 11, 8193.Google Scholar
Belknap, DC, Davidson, LJ & Flournoy, DJ (1990) Microorganisms and diarrhea in enterally fed intensive care unit patients. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 14, 622628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernet-Camard, MF, Lievin, V, Brassart, D, Neeser, JR, Servin, A & Hudault, S (1997) The human lactobacillus strain La1 secretes a nonbacteriocin antibacterial substance(s) active in vitro and in vivo. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 63, 27472753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleichner, G, Blehaut, H, Mentec, H & Moyse, D (1997) Sacchromyces boulardii prevents diarrhoea in critically ill tube fed patients. Intensive Care Medicine 23, 517523.Google Scholar
Bliss, DZ, Guenter, PA & Settle, RG (1992) Defining and reporting diarrhoea in tube-fed patients – what a mess! American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55, 753759.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bliss, DZ, Johnson, S, Savik, K, Clabots, CR & Gerding, DN (2000) Fecal incontinence in hospitalised patients who are acutely ill. Nursing Research 49, 101108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bliss, DZ, Johnson, S, Savik, K, Clabots, CR, Willard, K & Gerding, DN (1998) Acquisition of Clostridium difficile and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea in hospitalised patients receiving tube feeding. Annals of Internal Medicine 129, 10121019.Google Scholar
Bornside, GH & Cohn, I (1975) Stability of normal human fecal flora during a chemically defined, low residue liquid diet. Annals of Surgery 181, 5860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouhnik, Y, Vahedi, K, Achour, L, Attar, A, Salfati, J, Pochart, P, Marteau, P, Flourie, B, Bornet, F & Rambaud, JC (1999) Short-chain fructo-oligosaccharide administration dose-dependently increases fecal bifidobacteria in healthy humans. Journal of Nutrition 129, 113116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowling, TE, Raimundo, AH, Grimble, GK & Silk, DB (1994) Colonic secretory effect in response to enteral feeding in humans. Gut 35, 17341741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowling, TE, Raimundo, AH, Grimble, GK & Silk, DBA (1993) Reversal by short chain fatty acids of colonic fluid secretion induced by enteral feeding. Lancet 342, 12661268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowling, TE & Silk, DB (1998) Colonic responses to enteral tube feeding. Gut 42, 147151.Google Scholar
Bowling, TE & Silk, DBA (1996) Hormonal response to enteral feeding and the possible role of peptide YY in pathogenesis of enteral feeding-related diarrhoea. Clinical Nutrition 15, 307310.Google Scholar
Boyle, RJ, Robins-Browne, RM & Tang, ML (2006) Probiotic use in clinical practice: what are the risks? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 83, 12561264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brotherton, A, Abbott, J & Aggett, P (2006) The impact of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy feeding upon daily life in adults. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 19, 355367.Google Scholar
Cataldi-Betcher, EL, Seltzer, MH, Slocum, BA & Jones, KW (1983) Complications occurring during enteral nutrition support: a prospective study. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 7, 546552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clausen, MR, Bonnen, H, Tvede, M & Mortensen, PB (1991) Colonic fermentation to short chain fatty acids is decreased in antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. Gastroenterology 101, 14971504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuche, G, Cuber, JC & Malbert, CH (2000) Ileal short-chain fatty acids inhibit gastric motility by a humoral pathway. American Journal of Physiology 279, G925G930.Google ScholarPubMed
Del, Piano M, Ballare, M, Montino, F, Orsello, M, Garello, E, Ferrari, P, Masini, C, Strozzi, GP & Sforza, F (2004) Clinical experience with probiotics in the elderly on total enteral nutrition. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 38, S111S114.Google Scholar
DeMeo, M, Kolli, S, Keshavarzian, A, Borton, M, Al-Hosni, M, Dyavanapalli, M et al. (1998) Beneficial effect of a bile acid resin binder on enteral feeding induced diarrhea. American Journal of Gastroenterology 93, 967971.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elia, M (2003) The 2002 Annual Report of the British Artificial Nutrition Survey (BANS). Redditch, Worcs.: BAPEN.Google Scholar
Ellegard, L, Andersson, H & Bosaeus, I (1997) Inulin and oligofructose do not influence the absorption of cholesterol, or the excretion of cholesterol, Ca, Mg, Zn, Fe, or bile acids but increases energy excretion in ileostomy subjects. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 51, 15.Google Scholar
El-Salhy, M, Suhr, O & Danielsson, A (2002) Peptide YY in gastrointestinal disorders. Peptides 23, 397402.Google Scholar
Garleb, KA, Snook, JT, Marcon, MJ, Wolf, BW & Johnson, WA (1996) Effect of fructooligosaccharide containing enteral formulas on subjective tolerance factors, serum chemistry profiles, and faecal bifidobacteria in healthy adult male subjects. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 9, 279285.Google Scholar
Gibson, GR, McCartney, AL & Rastall, RA (2005) Prebiotics and resistance to gastrointestinal infections. British Journal of Nutrition 93, S31S34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, GR & Roberfroid, MB (1995) Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. Journal of Nutrition 125, 14011412.Google Scholar
Guenter, PA, Settle, RG, Perlmutter, S, Marino, PL, DeSimone, GA & Rolandelli, RH (1991) Tube feeding related diarrhoea in acutely ill patients. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 15, 277280.Google Scholar
Hamilton-Miller, JM (1996) Probiotic remedies are not what they seem. British Medical Journal 312, 5556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton-Miller, JM, Shah, S & Winkler, JT (1999) Public health issues arising from microbiological and labelling quality of foods and supplements containing probiotic micro-organisms. Public Health Nutrition 2, 223229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heimburger, DC, Sockwell, DG & Geels, WJ (1994) Diarrhoea with enteral feeding: Prospective reappraisal of putative causes. Nutrition 10, 392396.Google Scholar
Hopkins, MJ, Sharp, R & Macfarlane, GT (2001) Age and disease related changes in intestinal bacterial populations assessed by cell culture, 16S rRNA abundance, and community cellular fatty acid profiles. Gut 48, 198205.Google Scholar
Hsu, TC, Su, CF, Huang, PC, Lu, SC & Tsai, SL (2006) Comparison of tolerance and change of intragastric pH between early nasogastric and nasojejunal feeding following resection of colorectal cancer. Clinical Nutrition 25, 681686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelly, TWJ, Patrick, MR & Hillman, KM (1983) Study of diarrhea in critically ill patients. Critical Care Medicine 11, 79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keohane, PP, Atrill, H, Love, M, Frost, P & Silk, DBA (1984) Relation between osmolality and gastrointestinal side effects in enteral nutrition. British Medical Journal 288, 678680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knol, J, Scholtens, P, Kafka, C, Steenbakkers, J, Gro, S, Helm, K, Klarczyk, M, Schopfer, H, Bockler, HM & Wells, J (2005) Colon microflora in infants fed formula with galacto- and fructo-oligosaccharides: more like breast-fed infants. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 40, 3642.Google Scholar
Kolida, S, Tuohy, K & Gibson, GR (2002) Prebiotic effects of inulin and oligofructose. British Journal of Nutrition 87, S193S197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lebak, KJ, Bliss, DZ, Savik, K & Patten-Marsh, KM (2003) What's new on defining diarrhea in tube-feeding studies? Clinical Nursing Research 12, 174204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, S, Burmeister, S & Brazier, J (2005) Effect of the prebiotic oligofructose on relapse of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a randomized, controlled study. Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 3, 442448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lievin, V, Peiffer, I, Hudault, S, Rochat, F, Brassart, D, Neeser, JR & Servin, AL (2000) Bifidobacterium strains from resident infant human gastrointestinal microflora exert antimicrobial activity. Gut 47, 646652.Google Scholar
Link-Amster, H, Rochat, F, Saudan, KY, Mignot, O & Aeschlimann, JM (1994) Modulation of a specific humoral immune response and changes in intestinal flora mediated through fermented milk intake. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology 10, 5564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lochs, H, Allison, SP, Meier, R, Pirlich, M, Kondrup, J, Schneider, S, van den Berghe, G & Pichard, C (2006) Introductory to the ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Terminology, definitions and general topics. Clinical Nutrition 25, 180186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinlay, J, Wildgoose, A, Wood, W, Gould, IM & Anderton, A (2001) The effect of system design on bacterial contamination of enteral tube feeds. Journal of Hospital Infection 47, 138142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mai, V & Morris, JG (2004) Colonic bacterial flora: changing understandings in the molecular age. Journal of Nutrition 134, 459464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mathus-Vliegen, EMH, Bredius, MW & Binnekade, JM (2006) Analysis of sites of bacterial contamination in an enteral feeding system. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 30, 519525.Google Scholar
Mathus-Vliegen, LMH, Binnekade, JM & de Haan, RJ (2000) Bacterial contamination of ready-to-use 1-L feeding bottles and administration sets in severely compromised intensive care patients. Critical Care Medicine 28, 6773.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, DJ, Mackay, WG, Edwards, CA, Preston, T, Dodson, B & Weaver, LT (2006) Butyrate production from oligofructose fermentation by the human faecal flora: what is the contribution of extracellular acetate and lactate? British Journal of Nutrition 96, 570577.Google Scholar
Munoz, P, Bouza, E, Cuenca-Estrella, M, Eiros, JM, Perez, MJ, Sanchez-Somolinos, M, Rincon, C, Hortal, J & Pelaez, T (2005) Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia: an emerging infectious disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases 40, 16251634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mylonakis, E, Ryan, ET & Calderwood, SB (2001) Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea: a review. Archives of Internal Medicine 161, 525533.Google Scholar
Nakao, M, Ogura, Y, Satake, S, Ito, I, Iguchi, A, Takagi, K & Nabeshima, T (2002) Usefulness of soluble dietary fiber for the treatment of diarrhea during enteral nutrition in elderly patients. Nutrition 18, 3539.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, SJ, Lee, RB, Anderson, FP, Gennings, C, Abou-Assi, S, Clore, J, Heuman, D & Chey, W (2003) Physiological effects of enteral and parenteral feeding on pancreaticobiliary secretion in humans. American Journal of Physiology 284, G27G36.Google Scholar
Oku, T & Nakamura, S (2003) Comparison of digestibility and breath hydrogen gas excretion of fructo-oligosaccharide, galactosyl-sucrose, and isomalto-oligosaccharide in healthy human subjects. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 57, 11501156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okuma, T, Nakamura, M, Totake, H & Fukunaga, Y (2000) Microbial contamination of enteral feeding formulas and diarrhea. Nutrition 16, 719722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olah, A, Belagyi, T, Issekutz, A, Gamal, ME & Bengmark, S (2002) Randomized clinical trial of specific lactobacillus and fibre supplement to early enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. British Journal of Surgery 89, 11031107.Google Scholar
Oliveira, MR, Batista, CR & Aidoo, KE (2001) Application of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points system to enteral tube feeding in hospital. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 14, 397403.Google Scholar
Palframan, R, Gibson, GR & Rastall, RA (2003) Development of a quantitative tool for the comparison of the prebiotic effect of dietary oligosaccharides. Letters in Applied Microbiology 37, 281284.Google Scholar
Payne-James, JJ, De Gara, CJ, Grimble, GK & Silk, DBA (1995) Artificial Nutrition Support in the United Kingdom – 1994: Third National Survey. Clinical Nutrition 14, 329335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preiser, JC, Berre, J, Carpentier, Y, Jolliet, P, Pichard, C, Van Gossum, A & Vincent, JL (1999) Management of nutrition in European intensive care units: results of a questionnaire. Working Group on Metabolism and Nutrition of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Medicine 25, 95101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayes, N, Hansen, S, Seehofer, D, Muller, AR, Serke, S, Bengmark, S & Neuhaus, P (2002) Early enteral supply of fiber and Lactobacilli versus conventional nutrition: a controlled trial in patients with major abdominal surgery. Nutrition 18, 609615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rayes, N, Seehofer, D, Theruvath, T, Schiller, RA, Langrehr, JM, Jonas, S, Bengmark, S & Neuhaus, P (2005) Supply of pre- and probiotics reduces bacterial infection rates after liver transplantation – a randomized, double-blind trial. American Journal of Transplantation 5, 125130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reid, C (2006) Frequency of under- and overfeeding in mechanically ventilated ICU patients: causes and possible consequences. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 19, 1322.Google Scholar
Roberfroid, MB (2001) Prebiotics: preferential substrates for specific germs? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 73, S406S409.Google Scholar
Rossi, M, Corradini, C, Amaretti, A, Nicolini, M, Pompei, A, Zanoni, S & Matteuzzi, D (2005) Fermentation of fructo-oligosaccharides and inulin by bifidobacteria: a comparative study of pure and fecal cultures. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 71, 61506158.Google Scholar
Rushdi, TA, Pichard, C & Khater, YH (2004) Control of diarrhea by fiber-enriched diet in ICU patients on enteral nutrition: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clinical Nutrition 23, 13441352.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, EJ, Brassart, D, Servin, AL, Rochat, F & Donnet-Hughes, A (1997) Immune modulation of blood leucocytes in humans by lactic acid bacteria: criteria for strain selection. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 66, S515S520.Google Scholar
Schneider, SM, Girard-Pipau, F, Anty, R, van der Linde, EG, Philipsen-Geerling, BJ, Knol, J, Filippi, J, Arab, K & Hebuterne, X (2006) Effects of total enteral nutrition supplemented with a multi-fibre mix on faecal short-chain fatty acids and microbiota. Clinical Nutrition 25, 8290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, SM, Girard-Pipau, F, Filippi, J, Hebuterne, X, Moyse, D, Hinojosa, GC, Pompei, A & Rampal, P (2005) Effects of Saccharomyces boulardii on fecal short-chain fatty acids and microflora in patients on long-term total enteral nutrition. World Journal of Gastroenterology 11, 61656169.Google Scholar
Schneider, SM, Le Gall, P, Girard-Pipau, F, Piche, T, Pompei, A, Nano, JL, Hebuterne, X & Rampal, P (2000) Total artificial nutrition is associated with major changes in the fecal flora. European Journal of Nutrition 39, 248255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schrezenmeir, J & de Vrese, M (2001) Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics: approaching a definition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 73, S361S364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schultz, AA, Ashby-Hughes, B, Taylor, R, Gillis, DE & Wilkins, M (2000) Effects of pectin on diarrhea in critically ill tube-fed patients receiving antibiotics. American Journal of Critical Care 9, 403411.Google Scholar
Simor, AE, Yake, SL & Tsimidis, K (1993) Infection due to Clostridium difficile among elderly residents of a long-term-care facility. Clinical Infectious Diseases 17, 672678.Google Scholar
Spapen, H, Diltoer, M, Van Malderen, C, Opdenacker, G, Suys, E & Huyghens, L (2001) Soluble fiber reduces the incidence of diarrhea in septic patients receiving total enteral nutrition: a prospective, double-blind, randomized and controlled trial. Clinical Nutrition 20, 301305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Srinivasan, R, Meyer, R, Padmanabhan, R & Britto, J (2006) Clinical safety of Lactobacillus casei shirota as a probiotic in critically ill children. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 42, 171173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stroud, M, Duncan, H & Nightingale, J (2003) Guidelines for enteral feeding in adult hospital patients. Gut 52, Suppl. 7, S1S12.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A, Edlund, C & Nord, CE (2001) Effect of antimicrobial agents on the ecological balance of human microflora. Lancet Infectious Diseases 1, 101114.Google Scholar
Tuomola, E, Crittenden, R, Playne, M, Isolauri, E & Salminen, S (2001) Quality assurance criteria for probiotic bacteria. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 73, S393S398.Google Scholar
Vandewoude, MF, Paridaens, KM, Suy, RA, Boone, MA & Strobbe, H (2005) Fibre-supplemented tube feeding in the hospitalised elderly. Age and Ageing 34, 120124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watkinson, PJ, Barber, VS, Dark, P & Young, JD (2007) The use of pre-, pro- and synbiotics in adult intensive care unit patients: Systematic review. Clinical Nutrition 26, 182192.Google Scholar
Watzl, B, Girrbach, S & Roller, M (2005) Inulin, oligofructose and immunomodulation. British Journal of Nutrition 93, S49S55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whelan, K, Faiman, A, Hudspith, B & Bruce, K (2006 a) Probiotic fermented milks: the effect of storage on bacterial numbers. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 19, 475476.Google Scholar
Whelan, K, Gibson, GR, Judd, PA & Taylor, MA (2001) The role of probiotics and prebiotics in the management of diarrhoea associated with enteral tube feeding. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 14, 423433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whelan, K, Hill, L, Preedy, VR, Judd, PA & Taylor, MA (2006 b) Formula delivery in patients receiving enteral tube feeding on general hospital wards: the impact of nasogastric extubation and diarrhea. Nutrition 22, 10251031.Google Scholar
Whelan, K, Judd, PA, Preedy, VR, Simmering, R, Jann, A & Taylor, MA (2005) Fructo-oligosaccharides and fiber partially prevent the alterations in fecal microbiota and short-chain fatty acid concentrations caused by standard enteral formula in healthy humans. Journal of Nutrition 135, 18961902.Google Scholar
Whelan, K, Judd, PA, Preedy, VR & Taylor, MA (2004 a) Enteral feeding: the effect on faecal output, the faecal microflora and SCFA concentrations. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 63, 105113.Google Scholar
Whelan, K, Judd, PA & Taylor, MA (2002) Diarrhea during enteral nutrition – appropriate outcome measurement. Nutrition 18, 790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Whelan, K, Judd, PA, Tuohy, KM, Gibson, GR, Preedy, VR & Taylor, MA (2004 b) Faecal microflora and short-chain fatty acid concentrations in patients receiving enteral tube feeding. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 63, 122A.Google Scholar
Winitz, M, Adams, RF, Seedman, DA, Davis, PN, Jayko, LG & Hamilton, JA (1970) Studies in metabolic nutrition employing chemically defined diets. II. Effects on gut microflora populations. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 23, 546559.Google Scholar
Wistrom, J, Norrby, SR, Myhre, EB, Eriksson, S, Granstrom, G, Lagergren, L, Englund, G, Nord, CE & Svenungsson, B (2001) Frequency of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in 2462 antibiotic-treated hospitalized patients: a prospective study. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 47, 4350.Google Scholar
Yamano, T, Iino, H, Takada, M, Blum, S, Rochat, F & Fukushima, Y (2006) Improvement of the human intestinal flora by ingestion of the probiotic strain Lactobacillus johnsonii La1. British Journal of Nutrition 95, 303312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Table 1. Examples of potential mechanisms through which probiotics and prebiotics may prevent diarrhoea in patients receiving enteral tube feeding (ETF)