Death by parenteral nutrition

Meta-analysis of parenteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the safety and clinical outcomes of enteral and parenteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane controlled trials register, and citation review of relevant primary and review articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled studies that compared enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition in patients with acute pancreatitis. From 117 articles screened, six were identified as randomised controlled trials and were included for data extraction.

DATA EXTRACTION

Six studies with 263 participants were analysed. Descriptive and outcome data were extracted. Main outcome measures were infections, complications other than infections, operative interventions, length of hospital stay, and mortality. The meta-analysis was performed with the random effects model.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Enteral nutrition was associated with a significantly lower incidence of infections (relative risk 0.45; 95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.78, P = 0.004), reduced surgical interventions to control pancreatitis (0.48, 0.22 to 1.0, P = 0.05), and a reduced length of hospital stay (mean reduction 2.9 days, 1.6 days to 4.3 days, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in mortality (relative risk 0.66, 0.32 to 1.37, P = 0.3) or non-infectious complications (0.61, 0.31 to 1.22, P = 0.16) between the two groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Enteral nutrition should be the preferred route of nutritional support in patients with acute pancreatitis.

Safe paediatric intensive care. Part 1: Does more medical care lead to improved outcome?

Neonatal and paediatric intensive care has improved the prognosis for seriously sick infants and children. This has happened because of a pragmatic approach focused on stabilisation of vital functions and immense technological advances in diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. However, the belief that more medical care must inevitably lead to improved health is increasingly being questioned. This issue is especially relevant in developing countries where the introduction of highly specialised paediatric intensive care may not lead to an overall fall in child mortality. Even in developed countries, the complexity and availability of therapeutics and invasive procedures may put seriously ill children at additional risk. In both developing and industrialised countries the use of safe and simple procedures for appropriate periods, particular attention to drug prescription patterns and selection of appropriate aims and modes of therapy, including non-invasive methods, may minimise the risks of paediatric intensive care.

Is parenteral nutrition really that risky in the intensive care unit?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although enteral nutrition is now the mainstay of nutrition delivery within intensive care, there is a blind faith in its benefits and a disregard of its risks. This has led to the belief that parenteral nutrition is no longer required as it is fraught with risks to the patient. This review attempts to dispel these myths and compares and contrasts the risks of enteral nutrition with those of parenteral nutrition in the critically ill.

RECENT FINDINGS

A greater appreciation of the failings and risks associated with the delivery of enteral nutrition combined with improvements in the formulation and use of parenteral nutrition help explain why parenteral nutrition is not as risky as some have believed. Recent evidence has suggested that enteral nutrition in a few selected circumstances may even carry a higher mortality risk. Real outcome benefits have been described with the new glutamine-containing parenteral nutrition formulations.

SUMMARY

Parenteral nutrition remains a valuable yet challenging weapon in our therapeutic armoury in the presence of gastrointestinal feed intolerance or failure. However, it should be used wisely and not indiscriminately because the majority of intensive care unit patients with a fully functional gastrointestinal tract may be fed safely with enteral nutrition.

Can it all be done by enteral nutrition?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

During recent years techniques and metabolic considerations have been discussed intensively. One contributing reason is that results have not always been easy to interpret and introduce into clinical practice. Nutrition through the enteral and parenteral route has classically been compared, and this is the topic of this review.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the past 2 years a growing number of studies have focused on the amount and type of nutrition that is possible to give by enteral nutrition to intensive care unit patients. How to handle the clinical problem with paralysis and gastroparesis has also been studied. Basic research has shown a link between the gastrointestinal tract, immunocompetence and nutritional status. More evidence now exists that this is also clinically valid.

SUMMARY

Recent research has shown that enteral nutrition alone does not cover the total nutritional needs of intensive care unit patients. Enteral nutrition given early in a high dose is associated with a higher risk of complications. Metabolism in intensive care unit patients is different from the perioperative condition, which has been highlighted in recent studies with important clinical implications. The final solution has not been found yet, if it exists at all, and research in this field will continue. As the situation in biology and in real intensive care unit life is neither black nor white, it would be most beneficial for the intensive care unit patient if enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition joined together in a good balance in order to avoid underload and overload.

Stress-hyperglycemia, insulin and immunomodulation in sepsis

Stress-hyperglycemia and insulin resistance are exceedingly common in critically ill patients, particularly those with sepsis. Multiple pathogenetic mechanisms are responsible for this metabolic syndrome; however, increased release of pro-inflammatory mediators and counter-regulatory hormones may play a pivotal role. Recent data suggests that hyperglycemia may potentiate the pro-inflammatory response while insulin has the opposite effect. Furthermore, emerging evidence suggests that tight glycemic control will improve the outcome of critically ill patients. This paper reviews the pathophysiology of stress hyperglycemia in the critically ill septic patient and outlines a treatment strategy for the management of this disorder.