Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating an Enteral or Parenteral Nutrition Intervention in Critical Illness According to the CONSORT Statement: A Systematic Review and Recommendation of Minimum Standard Reporting Criteria

How do guideline recommended energy targets compare with measured energy expenditure in critically ill adults with obesity: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients with obesity have unique and complex nutritional needs, with clinical practice guidelines conflicting regarding recommended energy targets. The aim of this systematic review was to 1) describe measured resting energy expenditure (mREE) reported in the literature and; 2) compare mREE to predicted energy targets using the European (ESPEN) and American (ASPEN) guideline recommendations when indirect calorimetry is not available in critically ill patients with obesity.

METHODS

The protocol was registered apriori and literature was searched until 17th March, 2022. Original studies were included if they reported mREE using indirect calorimetry in critically ill patients with obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m²). Group-level mREE data was reported as per the primary publication using mean ± standard deviation or median [interquartile range]. Where individual patient data was available, Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess mean bias (95% limits of agreement) between guideline recommendations and mREE targets (i.e. ASPEN for BMI 30-50, 11-14 kcal/kg actual weight compared to 70% mREE and ESPEN 20-25 kcal/kg adjusted weight compared to 100% mREE). Accuracy was assessed by the percentage (%) of estimates within ±10% of mREE targets.

RESULTS

After searching 8019 articles, 24 studies were included. mREE ranged from 1607 ± 385 to 2919 [2318-3362]kcal and 12-32kcal/actual body weight. For the ASPEN recommendations of 11-14 kcal/kg, a mean bias of -18% (-50% to +13%) and 4% (-36% to +44%) was observed, respectively (n = 104). For the ESPEN recommendations 20-25 kcal/kg, a bias of -22% (-51% to +7%) and -4% (-43% to +34%), was observed, respectively (n = 114). The guideline recommendations were able to accurately predict mREE targets on 30%-39% occasions (11-14 kcal/kg actual) and 15%-45% occasions (20-25 kcal/kg adjusted), for ASPEN and ESPEN recommendations, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Measured energy expenditure in critically ill patients with obesity is variable. Energy targets generated using predictive equations recommended in both the ASPEN and ESPEN clinical guidelines have poor agreement with mREE and are frequently not able to accurately predict within ±10% of mREE, most commonly underestimating energy needs.

Systematic review of clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about nutrition in intensive care

Nutrition is a key component of care for critically ill patients; yet nutrition delivery is below international recommendations. In order to improve nutrition delivery to critically ill patients, an understanding of the barriers that prevent guideline adherence is required. It is known that clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of the role of nutrition may act as a potential barrier to nutrition delivery, but whether this remains true in critical care is unknown. The aim of this systematic scoping review was to summarize the literature exploring the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of clinicians around nutrition support in critically ill patients. A search of four online databases (MEDLINE via Ovid, Emcare via Ovid, PsycINFO, and CINAHL via EBSCOhost) was conducted on August 14, 2020, to identify literature that reported on clinicians' knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of nutrition in adult intensive care patients. Data were extracted on study and participant characteristics, methodology, and key study outcomes related to nutrition. Eighteen articles met eligibility criteria and were included in the review. Key findings included the following: nutrition was seen as a priority that ranked below life-saving interventions; differences in perceived clinician responsibilities exist; common barriers to nutrition delivery included inadequate resourcing, lack of nutrition protocols, and gastrointestinal intolerance; and identified facilitators included nutrition education and the presence of a supportive multidisciplinary team. The implementation of nutrition protocols, enhanced clinical nutrition education, and further clarification of roles and responsibilities pertaining to nutrition may assist in improving nutrition delivery in critical care.

Nutrition guidelines for critically ill adults admitted with COVID-19: Is there consensus?

Introduction

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed hospital systems globally, resulting in less experienced staff caring for critically ill patients within the intensive care unit (ICU). Many guidelines have been developed to guide nutrition care.

Aim

To identify key guidelines or practice recommendations for nutrition support practices in critically ill adults admitted with COVID-19, to describe similarities and differences between recommendations, and to discuss implications for clinical practice.

Methods

A literature review was conducted to identify guidelines affiliated with or endorsed by international nutrition societies or dietetic associations which included recommendations for the nutritional management of critically ill adult patients with COVID-19. Data were extracted on pre-defined key aspects of nutritional care including nutrition prescription, delivery, monitoring and workforce recommendations, and key similarities and discrepancies, as well as implications for clinical practice were summarized.

Results

Ten clinical practice guidelines were identified. Similar recommendations included: the use of high protein, volume restricted enteral formula delivered gastrically and commenced early in ICU and introduced gradually, while taking into consideration non-nutritional calories to avoid overfeeding. Specific advice for patients in the prone position was common, and non-intubated patients were highlighted as a population at high nutritional risk. Major discrepancies included the use of indirect calorimetry to guide energy targets and advice around using gastric residual volumes (GRVs) to monitor feeding tolerance.

Conclusion

Overall, common recommendations around formula type and route of feeding exist, with major discrepancies being around the use of indirect calorimetry and GRVs, which reflect international ICU nutrition guidelines.