Volume-Based Protocol Improves Delivery of Enteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Trauma Patients

Increasing the Volume of Delivered Enteral Feeds Using a Volume-Based Feeding Protocol in a Neuroscience Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic malnutrition is a significant burden to patients, clinicians, and health care systems. Compared with well-nourished patients, underfed patients (those who receive less than 80% of their daily energy requirement) have more adverse outcomes related to nutritional status. Volume-based protocols allow for catch-up titrations, are consistently superior to rate-based protocols, and can be implemented in most settings.

LOCAL PROBLEM

This project was conducted in an 8-bed neuroscience intensive care unit in which up to 41% of patients who required enteral feeding were underfed.

METHODS

This quality improvement clinical practice change project used a before-and-after design to evaluate (1) the effect of implementing a volume-based feeding protocol on the delivery of enteral feeds and (2) the effect of a nutrition-based project on staff members' attitudes regarding nutrition in critical care. The effectiveness of a volume-based feeding titration protocol was compared with that of a rate-based feeding protocol for achieving delivery of at least 80% of prescribed nutrition per 24-hour period. Staff members' attitudes were assessed using a survey before and after the project.

RESULTS

During 241 enteral feeding days (n = 40 patients), the percentage of delivered enteral feeding volume and the percentage of days patients received at least 80% of the prescribed volume increased after volume-based feeding was implemented. After project implementation, 74 staff members reported increased emphasis on nutrition delivery in their practice and a higher level of agreement that nutrition is a priority when caring for critically ill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a volume-based feeding protocol with supplemental staff education resulted in improved delivery of prescribed enteral feeding.

Nutritional Support in Critically Ill Trauma Patients

Enteral nutrition should be initiated within 24 to 48 hours of injury, starting at a trophic rate and increasing to goal rate after hemodynamic stability is achieved. The modified Nutritional Risk in the Critically Ill score can help identify patients who will benefit most from aggressive and early nutritional intervention. In the first week of critical illness, the patient should receive only 70% to 80% of estimated calories and protein should be targeted to 1.5 to 2 g/kg. Parenteral nutrition can be provided safely without increased adverse events. Peri-operative (and intra-operative) feeding has been shown to be safe in selected patients.

Optimizing enteral nutrition delivery by implementing volume-based feeding protocol for critically ill patients: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study aims to provide an updated assessment of the efficacy of optimized enteral nutrition (EN) delivery by implementing the volume-based feeding (VBF) protocol in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We updated our previous literature retrieval with no language restrictions. The inclusion criteria were:1) Participants: Critically ill patients (Patients who was admitted in ICU; 2) Intervention: The VBF protocol was adopted for EN administration; 3) Comparison: The rate-based feeding (RBF) protocol was adopted for EN administration; 4) Major outcomes: EN nutrition delivery. The exclusion criteria included participants aged < 18 years, duplicated literature, animal and cellular experiments, and studies lacking any of the outcomes mentioned in the inclusion criteria. The databases included MEDLINE (through PubMed), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure.

RESULT

Sixteen studies involving a total of 2896 critically ill patients are included in the updated meta-analysis. Compared with the previous meta-analysis, nine new studies were added that included 2205 more patients. The VBF protocol significantly improved energy (MD = 15.41%, 95% CI: [10.68, 20.14], p < 0.00001) and protein (MD = 22.05%, 95% CI: [10.89, 33.22], p = 0.0001) delivery. The patients in the VBF group stayed in the ICU for a shorter time (MD = 0.78, 95% CI: [0.01, 1.56], p = 0.05). The VBF protocol did not increase the risk of death (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: [0.85, 1.24], p = 0.76) or prolong the mechanical ventilation duration (MD = 0.81, 95% CI: [-0.30,1.92], p = 0.15). In addition, the VBF protocol did not affect EN complications, such as diarrhea (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: [0.73, 1.15], p = 0.43), emesis (RR = 1.23, 95% CI: [0.76, 1.99], p = 0.41), feeding intolerance (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: [0.63, 2.09], p = 0.66), and gastric retention (RR = 0.45, 95% CI: [0.16, 1.30], p = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that the VBF protocol significantly improved calorie and protein delivery in critically ill patients with no additional risk.

When is enteral nutrition indicated?

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a vital component of nutrition around the world. EN allows for delivery of nutrients to those who cannot maintain adequate nutrition by oral intake alone. Common questions regarding EN are when to initiate and in what scenarios it is safe. The answers to these questions are often complex and require an evidence-based approach. The Board of Directors of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) established an Enteral Nutrition Committtee to address the important questions surrounding the indications for EN. Consensus recommendations were established based on eight extremely clinically relevant questions regarding EN indications as deemed by the Enteral Nutrition Committee. These consensus recommendations may act as a guide for clinicians and stakeholders on difficult questions pertaining to indications for EN. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.

Relationship Between Nutrition Intake and Outcome After Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Results From the International Nutritional Survey

BACKGROUND

A previous study suggested an association between low caloric intake(CI), negative nitrogen balance, and poor outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage(SAH). Objective of this multinational, multicenter study was to investigate whether clinical outcomes vary by protein intake(PI) or CI in SAH patients adjusting for the nutritional risk as judged by the modified NUTrition Risk in the Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score.

METHODS

The International Nutrition Survey(INS) 2007-2014 was utilized to describe the characteristics, outcomes and nutrition use. A subgroup of patients from 2013 and 2014(when NUTRIC score was captured) examined the association between CI and PI and time to discharge alive(TTDA) from hospital using Cox regression models, adjusting for nutrition risk classified by the mNUTRIC score as low(0-4) or high(5-9).

RESULTS

There were 489 SAH patients(57% female with a mean ± SD age 57.5 ± 13.9 years, BMI of 25.9 ± 5.3 kg/m² and APACHE-2 score 19.4 ± 7.0. Majority(85%) received enteral nutrition(EN) only, with a time to initiation of EN of 35.4 ± 35.2 hours. 64% had EN interrupted. Patients received a CI of 14.6 ± 7.1 calories/kg/day and PI 0.7 ± 0.3 grams/kg/day corresponding to 59% and 55% of total prescribed CI and PI respectively. In the 2013 and 2014 subgroup there were 226 SAH patients with a mNUTRIC score of 3.4 ± 1.8. Increased CI and PI were associated with faster TTDA among high mNUTRIC patients(HR per 20% of prescription received = 1.34[95% CI,1.03 -1.76] for CI and 1.44[1.07 -1.93] for PI), but not low mNUTRIC patients(CI: HR = 0.95[0.77 -1.16] PI:0.95[0.78 -1.16]).

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this multicenter study found that SAH patients received under 60% of their prescribed CI and PI. Further, achieving greater CI and PI in hi risk SAH patients was associated with improved TTDA. mNUTRIC serves to identify SAH patients that benefit most from artificial nutrition and efforts to optimize protein and caloric delivery in this subpopulation should be maximized.

Clinician's Guide to Understanding Effect Size, Alpha Level, Power, and Sample Size

Effect size, α level, power, and sample size are misunderstood concepts that play a major role in the design and interpretation of studies. Effect size represents the magnitude of a change in an outcome or the strength of a relationship. Often, the effect size may be more important than just relying on the α level when interpreting results from a study because it informs a researcher of the actual magnitude of the difference or relationship. Confidence intervals can also assist in making this assessment. Power represents the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis when it is false. Effect size, power, and α level are all important in the calculation of sample size needed to conduct a study. Calculating the sample size a priori and including the required number of participants is essential. Studies with small sample sizes, relative to the needed number provided from a power analysis, may lead to false negative results. Studies with grossly large sample sizes may yield statistically significant findings with small effect sizes that may not be clinically relevant. It is beneficial when all four components are clearly presented in analytic studies. Failure to include these elements may limit the ability of other researchers to replicate the study's findings and lead to difficulty when interpreting the study's results.