Comparison of tolerance of peptide-based formula versus standard formula on outcome of critically ill children: an evidence-based case report
Main Article Content
Keywords
Peptide-based Formula, Standard Formula, Enteral Feeding, Critically-ill Children
Abstract
Introduction. The clinical benefit of peptide-based formulas remains controversial in critically ill children.
Objective. To conduct a critical review to compare the effects of peptide-based versus standard polymeric formulas on feeding tolerance and whether this would affect outcomes in critically ill children.
Methods. An online search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) databases using the keywords “Peptide-based Formula,” “Standard Formula,” “Critically ill Children,” and “Enteral Feeding.”
Results. Three articles were found: a case-control study and two prospective cohort studies. The results of the case-control study suggested that critically ill patients receiving peptide-based formulas showed significant reductions in feeding disturbances and abdominal distension and achieved full enteral feedings sooner compared with patients receiving standard formulas. The results of the first prospective cohort study showed that the peptide-based formula was better tolerated than the standard formula in children after bowel surgery, and the second study stated that choosing the peptide-based formula as the first prescription for enteral nutrition was associated with higher severity of clinical conditions in patients.
Conclusion. The peptide-based formula was better tolerated than the standard polymeric formula in critically ill pediatric patients.
References
2. Briassoulis G, Ilia S, Briassouli E. Personalized Nutrition in the Pediatric ICU: Steering the Shift from Acute Stress to Metabolic Recovery and Rehabilitation [Internet]. Vol. 16, Nutrients. 2024. p. 3523. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu16203523
3. Chen H, Li Z, Xuan P, Yu L. Comparative effects of enteral nutrition strategies on nutritional indices, inflammatory factors, and clinical outcomes in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Am J Transl Res. 2025;17(9):7333. Available from: https://doi.org/10.62347/QR006899
4. Cerdó T, García-Santos JA, Rodríguez-Pöhnlein A, García-Ricobaraza M, Nieto-Ruíz A, G Bermúdez M, et al. Impact of Total Parenteral Nutrition on Gut Microbiota in Pediatric Population Suffering Intestinal Disorders. Nutrients. 2022;14(21):4691. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14214691
5. Wang Y, Li Y, Zhang Y, Zhang D. Comparison of standard polymer formula versus short peptide formula in sepsis patients with acute gastrointestinal injury. Front Nutr. 2025;12:1682020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2025.1682020
6. de Brito-Ashurst I, Klebach M, Tsompanaki E, Kaul S, van Horssen P, Hofman Z. Gastrointestinal Tolerance and Protein Absorption Markers with a New Peptide Enteral Formula Compared to a Standard Intact Protein Enteral Formula in Critically Ill Patients [Internet]. Vol. 13, Nutrients. 2021. p. 2362. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13072362
7. Sumritpradit P, Shantavasinkul PC, Ungpinitpong W, Noorit P, Gajaseni C. Effect of high-protein peptide-based formula compared with isocaloric isonitrogenous polymeric formula in critically ill surgical patient. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2024;16(6):1765–74. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v16.i6.1765
8. Wang Y, Li Y, Li H, Li Y, Li X, Zhang D. Small peptide formulas versus standard polymeric formulas in critically ill patients with acute gastrointestinal injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):20469. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-47422-z
9. Ibrahim H, Mansour M, El Gendy YG. Peptide-based formula versus standard-based polymeric formula for critically ill children: Is it superior for patients’ tolerance? Arch Med Sci. 2020;16(2):592–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2020.94157
10. Mostafa MS, Gamal Y, Soliman MH. Peptide-based enteral formula vs a whole protein enteral formula after major intestinal surgeries in children. Ann Pediatr Surg. 2021;17(1):21–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43159-021-00112-9
11. Vidigal MVM, Leite HP, Nogueira PCK. Factors associated with peptide-based formula prescription in a pediatric intensive care unit. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012;54(5):620–3. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e31824a0149
12. Yakut T, Düzkaya DS, Uysal G. Evaluation of enteral nutrition applications in pediatric intensive care units in Turkey. Türk Yoğun Bakım Derg. 2025;23(1):78–87. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4274/tybd.galenos.2024.26214
13. Baik SM, Kim M, Lee JG. Comparison of Early Enteral Nutrition Versus Early Parenteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [Internet]. Vol. 17, Nutrients. 2025. p. 10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu17010010
14. Stojek M, Jasiński T. Gastroparesis in the intensive care unit. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2021;53(5):450–5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2021.110959
15. Soranno DE, Coopersmith CM, Brinkworth JF, Factora FNF, Muntean JH, Mythen MG, et al. A review of gut failure as a cause and consequence of critical illness. Crit Care. 2025;29(1):91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05309-7
16. Camilleri M. Gastrointestinal motility disorders in neurologic disease. J Clin Invest. 2021;131(4):e143771. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI143771
17. Govil D, Pal D. Gastrointestinal motility disorders in critically ill. Indian J Crit Care Med Peer-reviewed, Off Publ Indian Soc Crit Care Med. 2020;24(Suppl 4):S179. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10071-23614
18. Obeidat AE, Randhawa S. Gastrointestinal complications in critical care patients and effects of mechanical ventilation on the gastrointestinal tract. Collections. 2025;6(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.53097/JMV.10017
19. Lee H-Y, Lee J-K, Kim H-J, Ju D-L, Lee S-M, Lee J. Continuous versus Intermittent Enteral Tube Feeding for Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial [Internet]. Vol. 14, Nutrients. 2022. p. 664. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14030664
20. Petrović N, Žunić M, Pejčić A, Milosavljević M, Janković S. Factors associated with gastrointestinal dysmotility in critically ill patients. Open Med. 2023;18(1):20230820. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2023-0820
21. Bruning R, Dykes H, Jones TW, Wayne NB, Sikora Newsome A. Beta-adrenergic blockade in critical illness. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:735841. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.735841
22. Essmat N, Karádi DÁ, Zádor F, Király K, Fürst S, Al-Khrasani M. Insights into the Current and Possible Future Use of Opioid Antagonists in Relation to Opioid-Induced Constipation and Dysbiosis [Internet]. Vol. 28, Molecules. 2023. p. 7766. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28237766
23. Kagan I, Hellerman-Itzhaki M, Bendavid I, Statlender L, Fishman G, Wischmeyer PE, et al. Controlled enteral nutrition in critical care patients – A randomized clinical trial of a novel management system. Clin Nutr. 2023;42(9):1602–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2023.06.018
24. Putri TP, Mitra M, Devi LS. Analysis of Commercial Enteral Formula (CEF) and Hospital Enteral Formula (HEF) usage on cost budget and patient food acceptance. Maj Kesehat Indones. 2025;6(1):9–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.47679/makein.2025221
25. Montoro-Huguet MA, Belloc B, Domínguez-Cajal M. Small and Large Intestine (I): Malabsorption of Nutrients [Internet]. Vol. 13, Nutrients. 2021. p. 1254. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13041254