Re-evaluating the Inhibition of Stress Erosions (REVISE): a protocol for pilot randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Clinicians routinely administer stress ulcer prophylaxis to mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), most commonly prescribing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). However, the incidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding from stress ulceration is low and recent observational studies suggest these agents may increase infections. Therefore, a large randomized clinical trial (RCT) is needed to inform modern practice. The aim of this multicenter pilot trial is to determine the feasibility of performing a large RCT to investigate the efficacy and safety of withholding intravenous pantoprazole.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include adult critically ill patients who have an anticipated duration of ventilation of >=48 hours. We will exclude patients with acute or recent GI bleeding, pregnancy, dual antiplatelet therapy, poor prognosis or intent to withdraw life support, or previous enrolment in this or a confounding trial. Following informed consent, patients will be randomized to receive the intervention of placebo (0.9% NaCl) or intravenous pantoprazole 40 mg daily. Patients, families, clinicians, data collectors, adjudicators of outcome and statisticians will be blind to allocation. The three primary feasibility outcomes are the informed consent rate, recruitment rate, and protocol adherence. Clinical outcomes include clinically important upper GI bleeding, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), Clostridium difficile infection, length of stay and mortality in ICU and hospital.

ETHICS AND APPROVAL

This study has been approved by Health Canada, and research ethics board (REB) at each of the participating centers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial was registered on 31 October 2014. The trial registration number is NCT02290327.

FUNDING

REVISE Pilot Trial is funded by Research Grant awarded by Physicians Services Incorporated, Dammam University Research Funds, Capital Health Authority Research Award Halifax, and Royal Adelaide Hospital Project Committee Grant.

Nutritional controversies in critical care: revisiting enteral glutamine during critical illness and injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article examines some of the articles that inspired recent changes to critical care guidelines related to glutamine in enteral nutrition.

RECENT FINDINGS

Two recent multicenter randomized controlled trials involving enteral glutamine have reported increased mortality rates in groups of mechanically ventilated adult patients, while demonstrating no additional benefits to other outcomes, such as nosocomial infections.

SUMMARY

Recent studies suggest that enteral glutamine supplementation may not provide significant clinical benefits to adult patients on mechanical ventilation with multiple organ failure, but more information is still needed when attempting to apply these results to other groups of critical care patients.

Significant Published Articles for Pharmacy Nutrition Support Practice in 2014 and 2015

PURPOSE

To assist the pharmacy clinician engaged in nutrition support in staying current with the most pertinent literature.

METHODS

Several experienced board-certified clinical pharmacists engaged in nutrition support therapy compiled a list of articles published in 2014 and 2015 that they considered to be important to their practice. Only those articles available in print format were considered for potential inclusion. Articles available only in preprint electronic format were not evaluated. The citation list was compiled into a single spreadsheet where the author participants were asked to ascertain whether they considered the paper important to nutrition support pharmacy practice. A culled list of publications was then identified whereby the majority of author participants (at least 5 out of 8) considered the paper to be important.

RESULTS

A total of 108 articles were identified; 36 of which were considered to be of high importance. An important guideline article published in early 2016, but not ranked, was also included. The top-ranked articles from the primary literature were reviewed.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that the informed pharmacist, who is engaged in nutrition support therapy, be familiar with the majority of these articles.

Placement of a Magnetic Small Bowel Feeding Tube at the Bedside

BACKGROUND

Current methods of achieving postpyloric enteral access for feeding are fraught with difficulties, which can markedly delay enteral feeding and cause complications. Bedside tube placement has a low success rate, often requires several radiographs to confirm position, and delays feeding by many hours. Although postpyloric enteral tubes can reliably be placed in interventional radiology (IR), this involves greater resource utilization, delays, cost, and inconvenience. We assessed the utility of bedside enteral tube placement using a magnetic feeding tube (Syncro-BlueTube; Syncro Medical Innovations, Macon, GA, USA) as a means to facilitate initial tube placement.

METHODS

We recorded the time to insertion, location of tube, success rate, and need for radiographs in a series of patients given magnetic feeding tubes (n = 46) inserted by our hospitalist service over an 8-month interval.

RESULTS

Of the 46 attempted magnetic tube placements, 76% were successfully placed in the postpyloric position, 13% were in the stomach, and 11% could not be placed. In 83% of the magnetic tubes, only 1 radiograph was needed for confirmation. The median time to placement was 12 minutes (range, 4-120 minutes).

CONCLUSION

The use of a magnetic feeding tube can increase the success rate of bedside postpyloric placement, decrease the time to successful placement, and decrease the need for supplemental radiographs and IR.

Tolerability of Enteral Nutrition in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Septic Shock Who Require Vasopressors

Purpose:

Enteral nutrition (EN) is often held in patients receiving vasopressor support for septic shock. The rationale for this practice is to avoid mesenteric ischemia. The objective of this study is to evaluate the tolerability of EN in patients with septic shock who require vasopressor support and determine factors associated with tolerance of EN.

Materials and Methods:

This was a single-center retrospective review of adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with a diagnosis of septic shock and an order for EN. The primary outcome was EN tolerance. Secondary outcomes included time to initiation of EN from the start of vasopressor(s), length of stay, and mortality.

Results:

A total of 120 patients were included. Sixty-two percent of patients tolerated EN. The most common reason for intolerance of EN was gastric residuals > 250 mL (74%). No reports of mesenteric ischemia were observed. A multivariate analysis demonstrated that patients with septic shock initiating EN within 48 hours and receiving norepinephrine-equivalent doses of 0.14 μg/kg/min or less were more likely to tolerate EN.

Conclusion:

Based on our observation, early EN may be tolerated and safely administered in patients with septic shock who are adequately fluid resuscitated and receive doses of < 0.14 μg/kg/min of norepinephrine equivalents.

Supplemental Parenteral Nutrition Is the Key to Prevent Energy Deficits in Critically Ill Patients

This review emphasizes the role of a timely supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN) for critically ill patients. It contradicts the recommendations of current guidelines to avoid the use of PN, as it is associated with risk. Critical illness results in severe metabolic stress. During the early phase, inflammatory cytokines and mediators induce catabolism to meet the increased body energy demands by endogenous sources. This response is not suppressed by exogenous energy administration, and the early use of PN to reach the energy target leads to overfeeding. On the other hand, early and progressive enteral nutrition (EN) is less likely to cause overfeeding because of variable gastrointestinal tolerance, a factor frequently associated with significant energy deficit. Recent studies demonstrate that adequate feeding is beneficial during and after the intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Supplemental PN allows for timely adequate feeding, if sufficient precautions are taken to avoid overfeeding. Indirect calorimetry can precisely define the adequate energy prescription. Our pragmatic approach is to start early EN to progressively test the gut tolerance and add supplemental PN on day 3 or 4 after ICU admission, only if EN does not meet the measured energy target. We believe that supplemental PN plays a pivotal role in the achievement of adequate feeding in critically ill patients with intolerance to EN and does not cause harm if overfeeding is avoided by careful prescription, ideally based on energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry.

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no outcome differences between the two routes. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of the route of nutrition (EN versus PN) on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.

METHODS

An electronic search from 1980 to 2016 was performed identifying relevant RCTs. Individual trial data were abstracted and methodological quality of included trials scored independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was overall mortality and secondary outcomes included infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the treatment effect by dissimilar caloric intakes, year of publication and trial methodology. We performed a test of asymmetry to assess for the presence of publication bias.

RESULTS

A total of 18 RCTs studying 3347 patients met inclusion criteria. Median methodological score was 7 (range, 2-12). No effect on overall mortality was found (1.04, 95 % CI 0.82, 1.33, P = 0.75, heterogeneity I(2) = 11 %). EN compared to PN was associated with a significant reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.48, 0.87, P = 0.004, I(2) = 47 %). This was more pronounced in the subgroup of RCTs where the PN group received significantly more calories (RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.37, 0.82, P = 0.003, I(2) = 0 %), while no effect was seen in trials where EN and PN groups had a similar caloric intake (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.80, 1.10, P = 0.44, I(2) = 0 %; test for subgroup differences, P = 0.003). Year of publication and methodological quality did not influence these findings; however, a publication bias may be present as the test of asymmetry was significant (P = 0.003). EN was associated with significant reduction in ICU LOS (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.80, 95 % CI -1.23, -0.37, P = 0.0003, I(2) = 0 %) while no significant differences in hospital LOS and mechanical ventilation were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients, the use of EN as compared to PN has no effect on overall mortality but decreases infectious complications and ICU LOS. This may be explained by the benefit of reduced macronutrient intake rather than the enteral route itself.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Modern Parenteral Nutrition: A Review of the Current Evidence

Intravenous lipid emulsions are an essential component of parenteral nutrition regimens. Originally employed as an efficient non-glucose energy source to reduce the adverse effects of high glucose intake and provide essential fatty acids, lipid emulsions have assumed a larger therapeutic role due to research demonstrating the effects of omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) on key metabolic functions, including inflammatory and immune response, coagulation, and cell signaling. Indeed, emerging evidence suggests that the effects of omega-3 PUFA on inflammation and immune response result in meaningful therapeutic benefits in surgical, cancer, and critically ill patients as well as patients requiring long-term parenteral nutrition. The present review provides an overview of the mechanisms of action through which omega-3 and omega-6 PUFA modulate the immune-inflammatory response and summarizes the current body of evidence regarding the clinical and pharmacoeconomic benefits of intravenous n-3 fatty acid-containing lipid emulsions in patients requiring parenteral nutrition.

Parenteral nutrition in the ICU setting: need for a shift in utilization

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The difficulties to feed the patients adequately with enteral nutrition alone have drawn the attention of the clinicians toward the use of parenteral nutrition, although recommendations by the recent guidelines are conflicting. This review focuses on the intrinsic role of parenteral nutrition, its new indication, and modalities of use for the critically ill patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent trial demonstrated that selecting either parenteral nutrition or enteral nutrition for early nutrition has no impact on clinical outcomes. However, it must be acknowledged that the risk of relative overfeeding is greater when using parenteral nutrition and the risk of underfeeding is greater when using enteral nutrition because of gastrointestinal intolerance. Both overfeeding and underfeeding in the critically ill patients are associated with deleterious outcomes. Thus, early and adequate feeding according to the specific energy needs can be recommended as the optimal feeding strategy.

SUMMARY

Parenteral nutrition can be used to substitute or supplement enteral nutrition, if adequately prescribed. Testing for enteral nutrition tolerance during 2-3 days after ICU admission provides the perfect timing to start parenteral nutrition, if needed. In case of absolute contraindication for enteral nutrition, consider starting parenteral nutrition carefully to avoid overfeeding.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Nutrition Therapy in the Adult Hospitalized Patient

The value of nutrition therapy for the adult hospitalized patient is derived from the outcome benefits achieved by the delivery of early enteral feeding. Nutritional assessment should identify those patients at high nutritional risk, determined by both disease severity and nutritional status. For such patients if they are unable to maintain volitional intake, enteral access should be attained and enteral nutrition (EN) initiated within 24-48 h of admission. Orogastric or nasogastric feeding is most appropriate when starting EN, switching to post-pyloric or deep jejunal feeding only in those patients who are intolerant of gastric feeds or at high risk for aspiration. Percutaneous access should be used for those patients anticipated to require EN for >4 weeks. Patients receiving EN should be monitored for risk of aspiration, tolerance, and adequacy of feeding (determined by percent of goal calories and protein delivered). Intentional permissive underfeeding (and even trophic feeding) is appropriate temporarily for certain subsets of hospitalized patients. Although a standard polymeric formula should be used routinely in most patients, an immune-modulating formula (with arginine and fish oil) should be reserved for patients who have had major surgery in a surgical ICU setting. Adequacy of nutrition therapy is enhanced by establishing nurse-driven enteral feeding protocols, increasing delivery by volume-based or top-down feeding strategies, minimizing interruptions, and eliminating the practice of gastric residual volumes. Parenteral nutrition should be used in patients at high nutritional risk when EN is not feasible or after the first week of hospitalization if EN is not sufficient. Because of their knowledge base and skill set, the gastroenterologist endoscopist is an asset to the Nutrition Support Team and should participate in providing optimal nutrition therapy to the hospitalized adult patient.

Indications and contraindications for infusing specific amino acids (leucine, glutamine, arginine, citrulline, and taurine) in critical illness

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The review assesses the utility of supplementing parenteral or enteral nutrition of ICU patients with each of five specific amino acids that display pharmacological properties. Specifying indications implies also stating contraindications.Combined supplementation of amino acids with ω3-fatty acids and/or trace elements (immune-enhancing diets) will not be considered in this review because these mixtures do not allow the role of amino acids in the effect (positive or negative) of the mixture to be isolated, and so cannot show whether or not supplementation of a given amino acid is indicated.

RECENT FINDINGS

After decades of unbridled use of glutamine (GLN) supplementation in critically ill patients, recent large trials have brought a note of caution, indicating for example that GLN should not be used in patients with multiple organ failure. Yet these large trials do not change the conclusions of recent meta-analyses. Arginine (ARG), as a single dietary supplement, is probably not harmful in critical illness, in particular in a situation of ARG deficiency syndrome with low nitric oxide production. Citrulline supplementation strongly improves microcirculation in animal models with gut injury, but clinical studies are lacking. Taurine has a potent protective effect against ischemic reperfusion injury.

SUMMARY

Amino acid-based pharmaconutrition has displayed familiar 'big project' stages: enthusiasm (citrulline and taurine), doubt (GLN), hunt for the guilty (ARG), and backpedalling (leucine). Progress in this field is very slow, and sometimes gives way to retreat, as demonstrated by recent large trials on GLN supplementation.

Gastric Versus Small Bowel Feeding in Critically Ill Adults

Critically ill patients often require enteral feedings as a primary supply of nutrition. Whether enteral nutrition (EN) should be delivered as a gastric versus small bowel feeding in the critically ill patient population remains a contentious topic. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM)/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN), and the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines (CCPG) are not in consensus on this topic. No research to date demonstrates a significant difference between the two feeding routes in terms of patient mortality, ventilator days, or length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU); however, studies provide some evidence that there may be other benefits to using a small bowel feeding route in critically ill patients. The purpose of this paper is to examine both sides of this debate and review advantages and disadvantages of both small bowel and gastric routes of EN. Practical issues and challenges to small bowel feeding tube placement are also addressed. Finally, recommendations are provided to help guide the clinician when selecting a feeding route, and suggestions are made for future research.

Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding (PEPuP) protocol in critically ill surgical patients: a multicentre prospective evaluation

Suboptimal levels of feeding in critically ill patients are associated with poor clinical outcomes. The Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding (PEPuP) protocol was developed to improve nutritional delivery in the critically ill and has been studied in several hospitals. However, the experience with this protocol in surgical patients is limited to date. The objective of this analysis was to describe the experience with this protocol in surgical patients. We analysed observational patient data obtained from the 2013 International Nutrition Survey. We compared nutritional practices and outcomes of patients admitted for surgical and medical reasons to ICUs in sites that implemented the PEPuP protocol. We used surgical ICU patients in non-PEPuP sites as a concurrent control group. In sites that implemented the PEPuP protocol, surgical patients received a smaller proportion of prescribed calories (43% versus 61%, P=0.004) and protein (38% versus 57%, P=0.002) compared to medical patients. When compared to the cohort of surgical patients from control sites, the surgical patients from PEPuP sites received similar amounts of calories and protein. Although surgical PEPuP patients were more likely to receive trophic and volume-based feeds compared to surgical patients in control sites, other aspects of the PEPuP protocol were not adequately implemented. We conclude that nutritional delivery to surgical patients remains inadequate and the PEPuP protocol seems ineffective in improving nutritional intake in this population. Further research to determine methods of optimising PEPuP protocol implementation and adherence in surgery patients is needed.

Evaluation of the effect on patient parameters of not monitoring gastric residual volume in intensive care patients on a mechanical ventilator receiving enteral feeding: A randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of not measuring gastric residual volume (GRV) in intensive care patients on a mechanical ventilator and receiving enteral feeding on the feeding intolerance, gastroesophageal reflux (GER) risk, and nutritional adequacy.

METHODS

This randomized clinical study was performed in 2 medical intensive care units of 2 university hospitals in Ankara, Turkey. The patients were randomized into 2 groups. In the group with GRV monitoring, GRV was measured 3 times a day, and the GRV threshold was accepted as 250 mL. In addition, 24-hour pH monitoring was used in this group to assess the risk of GER. In the group without GRV monitoring, GRV was not measured. The patients were followed-up for 5 days.

RESULTS

The feeding targets were reached more quickly in the group without GRV monitoring (n = 26) with no increase in the complication rate (P < .05). No significant relationship was found between GRV and GER in the group with GRV monitoring (n = 25) (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The discrepancies in GRV measurement make it unreliable for monitoring feeding intolerance and GER. The use of GRV measurements may therefore be discontinued as part of the standard care protocol in medical intensive care units.

WITHDRAWN: Early enteral nutrition versus late enteral nutrition for burns patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the authors. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy.

Parenteral nutrition: never say never

This review emphasizes the benefits of parenteral nutrition (PN) in critically ill patients, when prescribed for relevant indications, in adequate quantities, and in due time.

Critically ill patients are at risk of energy deficit during their ICU stay, a condition which leads to unfavorable outcomes, due to hypercatabolism secondary to the stress response and the difficulty to optimize feeding. Indirect calorimetry is recommended to define the energy target, since no single predictive equation accurately estimates energy expenditure. Energy metabolism is intimately associated with protein metabolism. Recent evidence calls for adequate protein provision, but there is no accurate method to estimate the protein requirements, and recommendations are probably suboptimal. Enteral nutrition (EN) is the preferred route of feeding, but gastrointestinal intolerance limits its efficacy and PN allows for full coverage of energy needs.

Seven recent articles concerning PN for critically ill patients were identified and carefully reviewed for the clinical and scientific relevance of their conclusions. One article addressed the unfavorable effects of early PN, although this result should be more correctly regarded as a consequence of glucose load and hypercaloric feeding. The six other articles were either in favor of PN or concluded that there was no difference in the outcome compared with EN. Hypercaloric feeding was not observed in these studies. Hypocaloric feeding led to unfavorable outcomes. This further demonstrates the beneficial effects of an early and adequate feeding with full EN, or in case of failure of EN with exclusive or supplemental PN.

EN is the first choice for critically ill patients, but difficulties providing optimal nutrition through exclusive EN are frequently encountered. In cases of insufficient EN, individualized supplemental PN should be administered to reduce the infection rate and the duration of mechanical ventilation. PN is a safe therapeutic option as long as sufficient attention is given to avoid hypercaloric feeding.

Experience in Bedside Placement, Clinical Validity, and Cost-Efficacy of a Self-Propelled Nasojejunal Feeding Tube

BACKGROUND

The procedures needed to insert nasojejunal tubes (NJTs) are often invasive or uncomfortable for the patient and require hospital resources. The objectives of this study were to describe our experience in inserting a self-propelling NJT with distal pigtail end and evaluate clinical validity and cost efficacy of this enteral nutrition (EN) approach compared with parenteral nutrition (PN).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective study from July 2009 to December 2010, including hospitalized noncritical patients who required short-term jejunal EN. The tubes were inserted at bedside, using intravenous erythromycin as a prokinetic drug. Positioning was considered correct when the distal end was beyond the ligament of Treitz. Migration failure was considered when the tube was not positioned into the jejunum within 48 hours postinsertion.

RESULTS

Fifty-six insertions were recorded in 47 patients, most frequently in severe acute pancreatitis (69.6%). The migration rates at 18 and 48 hours postinsertion were 73.2% and 82.1%, respectively. There was migration failure in 8.9% of cases, and 8.9% were classified null (the tube was no longer in the gastrointestinal tract at 18 hours). There were no reported or observed complications. The mean duration of the EN was 12 ± 10.8 days. Five different types of EN formula were used. The total study cost was 53.9% lower compared with using PN in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that bedside insertion of a self-propelling NJT is a safe, cost-effective, and successful technique for postpyloric enteral feeding in at least 73% of the patients, and only 18% of patients could eventually need other placement techniques. It can avoid the need for more aggressive or expensive placement techniques or even PN if we cannot achieve enteral access.

Nutrition and metabolic support for critically ill patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute critical illness increases the risk of malnutrition, are more obese, and have multiple comorbidities and frequent pre-existing nutritional deficits. There is a vast amount of research and literature being written on nutritional practices in the critically ill. We review and discuss herein the important nutrition literature over the past 12 months.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sarcopenia, defined as loss of skeletal mass and strength, is associated with increased mortality and morbidity, particularly in elderly patients with trauma. Ultrasound is emerging as a noninvasive and promising method of measuring muscularity. Measuring gastric residuals and postpyloric feeding may not decrease rates of pneumonia in critically ill patients. Trophic and full feeding lead to similar long-term functional and cognitive outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

SUMMARY

Nutrition and metabolic support of critically ill patients is a complex and diverse topic. Nutritional measurements, requirements, and modes and routes of delivery are currently being studied to determine the best way to treat these complicated patients. We present just a few of the current controversial topics in this fascinating arena.

Nutritional management in critically ill trauma patients is challenging

Background

The physiological stress following major trauma in critical illness leads to rapid malnutrition and provision of optimal nutritional support in these circumstances can be challenging.

Case report

We present a complex trauma case where relatively aggressive nutritional support failed to minimise weight loss.

Conclusion

Nutritional support plays an integral role in the care of critically ill major trauma patients and needs to be continuously monitored in the subacute and rehabilitation phase.

Use of metabolic monitors in a multidisciplinary Intensive Care Unit: A prospective pilot study of 20 patients

Introduction:

Caloric intake of critically ill patients are usually calculated using predictive equations. Recent advances in gas exchange measurements have the potential to estimate energy expenditure at the bedside and at different time periods.

Materials and Methods:

Energy needs of critically ill patients were estimated over a period of 3 months using simplistic formula of 25 kcal/kg/day estimated energy expenditure (EEE), Harris–Benedict equation (HBE) (Basal energy expenditure [BEE]) and M-COVX™ metabolic monitor resting energy expenditure (REE) on day 4 of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. Calculations based on HBE were taken as standard, and percentage errors (PE) were calculated for each patient for values derived from simplistic formula and metabolic monitor. Adequacy of nutritional intake in ICU was also assessed.

Results:

Metabolic monitor could be used in only 20/70 patients. The mean age of patients was 40 years, 65% were males, and average body mass index was 23.69 kg/m². Intermittent intolerance to feeds was reported in 50%. Values of REE and EEE were greater than BEE in 70% of patients. A significant difference was reported in values of PE of ≤20% and ≥30%; P = 0.0003 and 0.0001, respectively estimated using REE and EEE.

Conclusions:

It is not feasible to use metabolic monitors in all patients. Variability in readings is large and further studies are needed to establish the validity of its measurements. Calculations using simplistic formulas are much closer to values obtained using HBE.

Feasibility of jejunal enteral nutrition for patients with severe duodenal injuries

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of enteral nutrition (EN) for critically ill trauma patients with severe traumatic duodenal injuries who received placement of concurrent decompressing and feeding jejunostomies.

METHODS

Adult patients admitted to the trauma intensive care unit from January 2010 to December 2013, given concurrent afferent decompressing and efferent feeding jejunostomies for severe duodenal injury and provided EN or parenteral nutrition (PN), were retrospectively evaluated. Enteral feeding intolerance was defined as an increase in the decompressing jejunostomy drainage volume output, worsening abdominal distension, or cramping/pain unrelated to surgical incisions. Patients who failed initial EN were transitioned to PN.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were enrolled. Of the 24 patients given EN within the first 2 wk posthospitalization, 18 (75%) failed EN within 2 ± 2 d of initiating EN. EN was discontinued when increases were seen in decompressing jejunostomy drainage volume output (n = 11) and output with abdominal pain and/or distension (n = 6), or abdominal pain/distension was seen without an increase in output (n = 1). Jejunostomy drainage volume output increased from 474 ± 425 mL/d to 1168 ± 725 mL/d (P < 0.001) during EN intolerance. More patients with blunt intestinal injury than those with penetrating injuries (75% versus 15%, respectively; P = 0.035) tolerated EN. Patients initially given PN (n = 13) received more calories (P < 0.005) and protein (P < 0.001) than those given initial EN (n = 13).

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients with severe duodenal injuries and concurrent decompressing/feeding tube jejunostomies failed initial EN therapy.

Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route in Critically Ill Patients (PEP uP Protocol): A Review of Evidence

Nutrition support is an integral part of care among critically ill patients. However, critically ill patients are commonly underfed, leading to consequences such as increased length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, time on mechanical ventilation, infectious complications, and mortality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of underfeeding has not resolved since the first description of this problem more than 15 years ago. This may be due to the traditional conservative feeding approaches. A novel feeding protocol (the Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol in Critically Ill Patients [PEP uP] protocol) was proposed and proven to improve feeding adequacy significantly. However, some of the components in the protocol are controversial and subject to debate. This article is a review of the supporting evidences and some of the controversy associated with each component of the PEP uP protocol.

Fat-Modified Enteral Formula Improves Feeding Tolerance in Critically Ill Patients: A Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Improvement of fat digestion and absorption was supposed to relieve feeding intolerance. This trial aimed to evaluate the effect of a fat-modified enteral formula on feeding tolerance in critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This trial was conducted in 7 hospitals in China. In total, 144 intensive care unit (ICU) patients with estimated need of enteral nutrition (EN) for at least 5 days were randomly given fat-modified enteral formula containing medium-chain triglycerides (MCT), carnitine, and taurine (interventional feed group, n = 71) or standard enteral formula (control feed group, n = 73). EN intake, feeding intolerance (diarrhea, vomiting, gastric retention, and abdominal distension) and outcomes (mechanical ventilator-free days of 28 days, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality) were collected.

RESULTS

Daily calories and protein intake were increased in the interventional feed group compared with the control feed group ( P < .01). Total incidence of feeding intolerance was 42.3% in the interventional feed group and 65.7% in the control feed group ( P < .001). Daily incidence of feeding intolerance was 11.3%, 18.3%, 14.1%, 25.4%, and 26.1% in the interventional feed group and 31.5%, 32.9%, 34.2%, 34.2%, and 30.4% in the control feed group from study days 1-5 ( P = .0083). Incidence of feeding intolerance without abdominal distention was 32.9% in the interventional feed group and 49.3% in the control feed group ( P = .047), while the incidence of abdominal distension was 26.8% in the interventional feed group and 43.8% in the control feed group ( P = .03). No significant differences existed in outcomes between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The fat-modified enteral formula containing MCT, carnitine, and taurine may improve feeding tolerance in critically ill patients.

Enteral Nutrition in the PICU: Current Status and Ongoing Challenges

Malnutrition in the critically ill or injured child is associated with increased morbidities and mortality in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), whether present upon admission or acquired during the PICU stay. Particular subpopulations such as those with congenital heart disease or severe thermal injury are at highest risk for malnutrition which can worsen with illness progression. A growing body of evidence suggests the presence of a positive association between nutrition support during critical illness and patient outcomes. Enteral nutrition (EN), the preferred route of nutrient delivery, may be a crucial component of care provided in the PICU which modifies the response to critical illness or injury, resulting in improved outcomes. Numerous challenges exist in the delivery of the EN goal in critically ill children. These include accurate assessment of nutrient requirements, hemodynamic instability, feeding intolerance, feeding interruptions, and the lack of a standardized approach to nutrition support. This article describes the current state of the science and challenges related to EN prescription and delivery in the critically ill child. Suggestions for improving EN practice are then presented, in addition to a platform for further research inquiry.

[Enteral nutrition therapy in critical care : Current knowledge, controversies, and practical implementation]

Nutrition therapy is a cornerstone in critical care. Early enteral feeding in patients who are unable to meet caloric requirements from oral intake is associated with better clinical outcomes. However, there are still uncertainties about optimal timing, dose, and formula selection of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients. In the present article, an overview of current knowledge and practical strategies for successful implementation of enteral nutrition in intensive care patients is given.

Gastric feeding intolerance is not caused by mucosal ischemia measured by intragastric air tonometry in the critically ill

BACKGROUND

Gastric mucosal ischemia may be a risk factor for gastrointestinal intolerance to early feeding in the critically ill.

AIMS

To study intragastric PCO2 air tonometry and gastric residual volumes (GRV) before and after the start of gastric feeding.

METHODS

This is a two-center study in intensive care units of a university and teaching hospital. Twenty-nine critically ill, consecutive and consenting patients scheduled to start gastric feeding were studied after insertion of a gastric tonometry catheter and prior to and after start of gastric feeding (500 ml over 1 h), when clinically indicated.

RESULTS

Blood gasometry and intragastric tonometry were performed prior to and 2 h after gastric feeding. The intragastric to arterial PCO2 gap (normal <8 mm Hg) was elevated in 41% of patients prior to feeding and measured (mean ± standard deviation) 13 ± 20 and 16 ± 23 mm Hg in patients with normal (<100 ml, 42 ± 34 ml, n = 19) and elevated GRV (250 ± 141 ml, n = 10, P = 0.75), respectively. After feeding, the gradient did not increase and measured 27 ± 25 and 23 ± 34 mm Hg, respectively (P = 0.80).

CONCLUSION

Gastric mucosal ischemia is not a major risk factor for intolerance to early gastric feeding in the critically ill.

Analysis of the nutritional management practices in intensive care: Identification of needs for improvement

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the nutritional management practices in Intensive Care (ICU) to detect the need for improvement actions. Re-evaluate the process after implementation of improvement actions.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study in 3 phases: 1) observation; 2) analysis, proposal development and dissemination; 3) analysis of the implementation.

SETTING

ICU of a hospital of high complexity.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult ICU forecast more than 48h of artificial nutrition.

PRIMARY ENDPOINTS

Parenteral nutrition (PN), enteral nutrition (EN) (type, average effective volume, complications) and average nutritional ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients (phase 1: 110, phase 3: 119). After analyzing the initial results, were proposed: increased use and precocity of EN, increased protein intake, nutritional monitoring effectiveness and increased supplementary indication NP. The measures were broadcast at specific meetings. During phase 3 more patients received EN (55.5 vs. 78.2%, P=.001), with no significant difference in the start time (1.66 vs. 2.33 days), duration (6.82 vs. 10,12 days) or complications (37,7 vs. 47,3%).Use of hyperproteic diets was higher in phase 3 (0 vs. 13.01%, P<.05). The use of NP was similar (48.2 vs. 48,7%) with a tendency to a later onset in phase 3 (1.25±1.25 vs. 2.45±3.22 days). There were no significant differences in the average nutritional ratio (0.56±0.28 vs. 0.61±0.27, P=.56).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of EN and the protein intake increased, without appreciating effects on other improvement measures. Other methods appear to be necessary for the proper implementation of improvement measures.

Effect of initial calorie intake via enteral nutrition in critical illness: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Introduction

Guidelines support the use of enteral nutrition to improve clinical outcomes in critical illness; however, the optimal calorie and protein intake remains unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to quantitatively analyze randomised controlled trials with regard to clinical outcomes related to varying calorie and protein administration in critically ill adult patients.

Method

We searched Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of initially different calorie and protein intake in critical illness. The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using random-effects models. The primary endpoint was mortality; secondary endpoints included infection, pneumonia, gastrointestinal intolerance, hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay, and mechanical ventilation days.

Results

In the eight randomised controlled trials that enrolled 1,895 patients there was no statistical difference between the low-energy and high-energy groups in mortality (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.15; P = 0.40), infection (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.29; P = 0.32), or the risk of gastrointestinal intolerance (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.19; P = 0.33). In subgroup analysis, the low-energy subgroup, fed 33.3 to 66.6% of goal energy, showed a lower mortality than the high-energy group (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.92; P = 0.01). The improvements in mortality and gastrointestinal intolerance were absent when calorie intake was >66.6% of goal energy in the low-energy group. High-energy intake combined with high-protein intake reduced the infections (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.52; P = 0.02); however, when the daily protein intake was similar in both groups, a high-energy intake did not decrease the infections. No statistical differences were observed in other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis indicates that high-energy intake does not improve outcomes and may increase complications in critically ill patients who are not malnourished. Initial moderate nutrient intake (33.3 to 66.6% of goal energy), compared to high energy, may reduce mortality, and a higher protein intake combined with high energy (≥0.85 g/kg per day) may decrease the infection rate. However, the contribution of energy versus protein intake to outcomes remains unknown.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0902-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.