Back

Effect of cyclic daytime versus continuous enteral nutrition on circadian rhythms in critical illness: a randomized controlled trial

Hiemstra, F. W.; van Gent, M. F.; Meijer, J. H.; Dashti, H. S.; de Jonge, E.; van Westerloo, D. J.; Kervezee, L.

2026-08-27 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.64898/2026.08.24.26361187 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objective: Circadian rhythms are frequently disrupted in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), potentially worsening clinical outcomes. Continuous enteral nutrition throughout the day and night is common in the ICU, but eliminates feeding-fasting cycles that serve as important timing cues for the circadian system. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of providing enteral nutrition in a cyclic daytime pattern, compared with continuous administration, on circadian rhythmicity in critically ill patients in the ICU. Design: Single-center randomized controlled trial Setting: Mixed medical-surgical tertiary intensive care unit in the Netherlands Patients: Adult ICU patients ([≥]18 yr) receiving enteral nutrition. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive either continuous, or cyclic daytime enteral feeding (08:00-20:00), initiated from the start of nutritional support. Measurements and Main Results: Sixty-two ICU patients were enrolled, of whom 51 were included in the per-protocol analysis. While the amplitude of the 24-hour rhythm in core body temperature did not differ significantly between the cyclic daytime and continuous feeding groups (0.17 [interquartile range: 0.09-0.24] vs. 0.20 [0.13-0.30], p=0.182), the 24-hour rhythm in heart rate was enhanced in patients receiving cyclic daytime feeding, as reflected by significantly higher amplitudes and more synchronized peak times. No significant differences in 24-hour rhythmicity were observed between groups for the other vital signs or melatonin. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that cyclic daytime feeding may strengthen circadian rhythms in critically ill patients. Further studies are warranted to evaluate its impact on clinical outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.