Use of Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis

A roadmap for implementing a successful clinical experience with intradialytic parenteral nutrition

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) is a safe and effective patient-tailored nutritional strategy for providing nutrient supplementation to malnourished or at risk of malnutrition patients on hemodialysis (HD), who did not adequately respond to intensive dietary counselling and oral nutritional supplementation. Although IDPN is recommended by current ESPEN and KDOQI guidelines for nutrition in HD patients, none of these documents informs how to successfully implement this therapy, being the lack of knowledge on practical aspects of IDPN one of the main limitations to its use. The aim of this narrative review was to provide a practical roadmap for guiding the nephrologists, dietitians, and renal nurses in their everyday clinical practice about the use of IDPN.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group formed by specialists from the areas of Nephrology and Nutrition agreed to address different practical aspects related to IDPN in HD patients. Based on the available evidence in the literature and on the authors' clinical experience, different topics were selected to develop a detailed plan for implementing a successful experience with IDPN, proposing a practical IDPN roadmap.

RESULTS

This IDPN roadmap provides practical information on when an IDPN should be started; what type of nutrients should be part of an IDPN; how the IDPN should be administered; how the effectiveness and safety of the IDPN should be monitored; how to determine the effectiveness of IDPN; and the conditions that advise discontinuing the IDPN.

CONCLUSIONS

IDPN is a safe and effective nutritional therapy for HD patients, although the lack of staff training may limit its use. This review addresses different practical aspects of IDPN, helping interdisciplinary teams in their daily clinical practice to improve the nutritional care of HD patients, either malnourished or at risk of malnutrition.

Revisiting Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition: How Can We Apply the Evidence in Clinical Practice?

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) remains a controversial nutrition support practice in hemodialysis. Multiple reviews and evidence-based clinical practice guidelines have been published in the past 20 years. Despite essentially looking at the same evidence, conclusions and recommendations vary significantly, leading to widespread uncertainty among clinicians on the value of and indications for IDPN. This paper aims to bring a clinical perspective to the current state of evidence and clinical practice, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of current evidence and the clinical questions that remain unanswered, as well as providing guidance for using IDPN in clinical practice. IDPN should be considered a strategy to complement spontaneous oral intake in clinically stable patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis or who have or are at risk of malnutrition and who have substantial but not adequate protein and/or energy intake. There is a clear need for robust randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of IDPN in appropriately selected patients. Additionally, future trials should include patient-centered outcome measures such as appetite, spontaneous oral intake, quality of life, and reliable measures of nutritional status.

Case Studies of Intradialytic Total Parenteral Nutrition in Nocturnal Home Hemodialysis

The standard use of intradialytic parenteral nutrition has yielded heterogeneous clinical results. Confounders include patient selection, limited dialysis sessional duration, and frequency. Nocturnal home hemodialysis provides an intensive form of kidney replacement therapy (5 sessions per week and 8 hours per treatment). We present a series of 4 nocturnal home hemodialysis patients who required intradialytic total parenteral nutrition (IDTPN) as their primary source of caloric intake. We describe the context, effectiveness, and complications of IDTPN in these patients. Our patients received a range of 1200 to 1590 kCal (including 60 to 70 g of amino acids) with each IDTPN session for up to 27 months. As the availability of home hemodialysis continues to grow, the role of supplemental or primary IDTPN will require further research for this vulnerable patient population.

Effect of Omega-3 Fatty Acids Supplementation on Homocysteine Level in Patients Undergoing Continuous Ambulatory Peritoneal Dialysis

Objective

One of the most common diseases with high morbidity and mortality rates is chronic kidney disease. Cardiovascular disease affects most patients with chronic kidney disorders, particularly patients undergoing dialysis; hence, appropriate prevention and management approaches are essential. This study aimed to evaluate the reduction of inflammatory biomarkers, especially homocysteine, by omega-3 fatty acids in peritoneal dialysis patients.

Methods

This study enrolled 60 peritoneal dialysis patients who met specified inclusion and exclusion criteria and were randomized to intervention or placebo groups. Omega-3 capsules were given at a dose of 3 g/d for 8 weeks. Inflammatory markers, including high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), homocysteine, albumin, and lipid profile measured before and after the study.

Findings

Results of this trial revealed that the levels of homocysteine, hs-CRP, and albumin did not change significantly during the study. Analysis of lipid profiles before and after intervention showed omega-3 has no significant effect on the level of total cholesterol or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; However, the level of triglyceride reduced remarkably (P = 0.002). In addition, serum levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased at the end of the study (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Omega-3 does not seem to be able to change the inflammatory markers significantly, particularly homocysteine. More extensive trials must be conducted to better understand the impact of omega-3 on inflammatory and nutritional markers, particularly in peritoneal dialysis patients.

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition for patients on hemodialysis: when, how and to whom?

Hemodialysis is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates as well as low quality of life. Altered nutritional status and protein-energy wasting are important indicators of these risks. Maintaining optimal nutritional status in patients with hemodialysis is a critical but sometimes overlooked aspect of care. Nutritional support strategies usually begin with dietary counseling and oral nutritional supplements. Patients may not comply with this advice or oral nutritional supplements, however , or compliance may be affected by other complications of progressive chronic kidney disease. Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) may be a possibility in these cases, but lack of knowledge on practical aspects of IDPN delivery are seldom discussed and may represent a barrier. In this review, we, as a consensus panel of clinicians experienced with IDPN, survey existing literature and summarize our views on when to use IDPN, which patients may be best suited for IDPN, and how to effectively deliver and monitor this strategy for nutritional support.

The beneficial effects of intradialytic parenteral nutrition in hemodialysis patients with protein energy wasting: a prospective randomized controlled trial

In hemodialysis (HD) patients, protein-energy wasting (PEW) is highly prevalent and firstly treated with oral nutritional supplements (ONS). The extent to which intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) contributes to improve PEW status in HD patients intolerable to ONS remains unclear. Maintenance PEW HD patients being unable to tolerate ONS adverse effects, and having spontaneous energy and protein intake of ≥ 20 kcal/kg/day and ≥ 0.8 g/kg/day, respectively were randomly assigned 1:1 into IDPN and control groups. In IDPN group, most concentrated 3-in-1, fish-oil based parenteral nutrition was infused during HD for 3 months. The control group received intensive dietary counselling once weekly for 3 months. Both groups were then followed for additional 3 months after intervention. A total of 38 patients were randomized (mean age 67.6 years). After 3 months, serum albumin was significantly higher in the IDPN (n = 18) compared with control group (from 3.5 ± 0.3 to 3.8 ± 0.2 vs from 3.6 ± 0.3 to 3.5 ± 0.3 g/dL, respectively, p = 0.01). Spontaneous dietary intake (p = 0.04), body weight (p = 0.01), and malnutrition inflammation score (MIS, p = 0.01) were improved in the IDPN, but not in the control group. Muscle mass, strength, serum prealbumin, interleukin-6, high sensitivity-c reactive protein, and acylated ghrelin were not significantly different but leptin levels increased in the control group after 3 months (p = 0.03). At 6 months, serum albumin in the IDPN group was persistently higher than baseline (p = 0.04). Neither volume overload nor uncontrolled hyperglycemia was found throughout the study. In conclusion, a 3-month IDPN supplementation demonstrated a significant increase in serum albumin, body weight, spontaneous oral intake, and MIS; and appeared to be superior to continuing intensive dietary counselling among HD patients intolerable to ONS. The impacts of IDPN therapy on clinical outcomes may require larger scale with longer period of study.

Chronic Kidney Disease and Nutrition Support

Individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), particularly those undergoing maintenance dialysis, are prone to protein-energy wasting (PEW), the latter of which can be ameliorated with different methods of nutrition support. Dietary counseling guided by dietitians is the key for preventing and managing PEW in CKD. If dietary counseling per se fails to meet the recommended energy and protein requirements, the addition of oral nutrition supplements (ONSs) would be necessary. When these initial measures cannot attain the recommended energy and protein requirements, nutrition support, including enteral tube feeding or parenteral nutrition (PN), should be considered as a viable option to improve nutrition status. Partial PN, comprising intraperitoneal PN (IPPN) and intradialytic PN (IDPN) therapies, may be attempted as supplemental nutrition support in patients with PEW requiring peritoneal dialysis and hemodialysis, respectively. Despite the debatable effectiveness of IPPN for patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis, it remains a feasible means in these patients. The indications for IPPN in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis include inadequate dietary intake of energy and protein, and barriers of oral intake and other forms of enteral supplementation such as issues with suitability, tolerance, and compliance. Nonetheless, in the case of spontaneous dietary consumption of energy and protein meeting the difference between the IDPN provision and the nutrition targets, the use of IDPN is rational. In patients with PEW and malfunctioning gastrointestinal tract, as well as those whose enteral intake (with or without partial PN) is below the recommended nutrient requirements, total PN becomes a relevant nutrition intervention.

A qualitative systematic review of the social eating and drinking experiences of patients following treatment for head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

Patients living with and beyond head and neck cancer (HNC) often have long-term, functional challenges as a result of treatment. A key functional challenge relates to eating and drinking; often associated with physical, emotional, and social difficulties. Eating and drinking with family members and friends can become a struggle, increasing the risk of social isolation and loneliness. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise the literature on the experiences of social eating and drinking for patients following treatment for HNC.

METHODS

Six electronic databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and Scopus) were systematically searched using subject headings and free-text word searches in February 2020. Citation chaining and Google Scholar were used to identify grey literature. PRISMA procedures were followed.

RESULTS

Of 6910 records identified, 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. Synthesis of the research findings results in two major themes: (1) the experience of loss associated with social eating and drinking, and (2) adjusting and support to promote social eating and drinking.

CONCLUSION

Losses associated with social eating affect a patient's psychological and emotional well-being and impact on close relationships. To promote positive participation in social eating, patients were more likely to seek and receive support from someone within their close social network, rather than a healthcare professional. Family and friends are an essential source of support and are integral in facilitating engagement with social eating following treatment for HNC. Future interventions should promote family orientated resources, incorporating self-management strategies.

Hemodialysis-Nutritional Flaws in Diagnosis and Prescriptions. Could Amino Acid Losses be the Sharpest "Sword of Damocles"?

This review aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses emerging from diagnostic evaluations and prescriptions in an intent to prevent progression over time of malnutrition and/or protein-energy wasting (PEW) in hemodialysis (HD) patients. In particular, indications of the most effective pathway to follow in diagnosing a state of malnutrition are provided based on a range of appropriate chemical-clinical, anthropometric and instrumental analyses and monitoring of the nutritional status of HD patients. Finally, based on the findings of recent studies, therapeutic options to be adopted for the purpose of preventing or slowing down malnutrition have been reviewed, with particular focus on protein-calorie intake, the role of oral and/or intravenous supplements and efficacy of some classes of amino acids. A new determining factor that may lead inexorably to PEW in hemodialysis patients is represented by severe amino acid loss during hemodialysis sessions, for which mandatory compensation should be introduced.

Intradialytic Nutrition and Hemodialysis Prescriptions: A Personalized Stepwise Approach

Dialysis and nutrition are two sides of the same coin—dialysis depurates metabolic waste that is typically produced by food intake. Hence, dietetic restrictions are commonly imposed in order to limit potassium and phosphate and avoid fluid overload. Conversely, malnutrition is a major challenge and, albeit to differing degrees, all nutritional markers are associated with survival. Dialysis-related malnutrition has a multifactorial origin related to uremic syndrome and comorbidities but also to dialysis treatment. Both an insufficient dialysis dose and excessive removal are contributing factors. It is thus not surprising that dialysis alone, without proper nutritional management, often fails to be effective in combatting malnutrition. While composite indexes can be used to identify patients with poor prognosis, none is fully satisfactory, and the definitions of malnutrition and protein energy wasting are still controversial. Furthermore, most nutritional markers and interventions were assessed in hemodialysis patients, while hemodiafiltration and peritoneal dialysis have been less extensively studied. The significant loss of albumin in these two dialysis modalities makes it extremely difficult to interpret common markers and scores. Despite these problems, hemodialysis sessions represent a valuable opportunity to monitor nutritional status and prescribe nutritional interventions, and several approaches have been tried. In this concept paper, we review the current evidence on intradialytic nutrition and propose an algorithm for adapting nutritional interventions to individual patients.

When is parenteral nutrition indicated in the hospitalized, acutely ill patient?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The current review discusses current practices regarding appropriate indications for parenteral nutrition in acutely ill hospitalized patients. We address-specific indications for parenteral nutrition in the perioperative period, and in inflammatory bowel disease, oncology, hepatobiliary, critical care and end-stage renal disease patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Acutely ill hospitalized patients can develop intestinal failure requiring parenteral nutrition. Recent studies have provided insight into the main indications. The most common indications for inpatient parenteral nutrition include postsurgical complications, including prolonged ileus, sepsis, fistula and leaks, and bowel obstruction, predominantly malignant. Severe or complicated inflammatory bowel disease and cancer treatment-related mucosal enteropathies (mucositis, enterocolitis, gut graft-versus-host disease) are the next commonest indications. Less frequent indications are primary motility disorders and inability to secure enteral access for enteral nutrition. Gastrointestinal failure of the intensive care patient is a separate entity resulting from multiple mechanisms, including an enteropathy and dysmotility.

SUMMARY

Despite the wider availability of nutrition support teams, use of parenteral nutrition is not without risk. The risks and benefits of parenteral nutrition in the acute setting need to be carefully considered even when it is indicated.

Oral supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids and inflammation markers in patients with chronic kidney disease in hemodialysis

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an increasingly common public health problem that increases the risk of death because of cardiovascular complications by 2-3 times compared with the general population. This research concerns a prospective, randomized, double-blind study in patients with CKD undergoing hemodialysis. The participants were assigned to 1 of 2 groups: the study group (group A; 46 patients) received 4 capsules (2.4 g) of omega-3 fatty acids daily during the 12-week intervention, while patients in the control group (group B; 47 patients) received 4 capsules of paraffin oil. The patients' general characteristics, nutritional indicators, renal disease markers and inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-10, and tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α)) were evaluated. No differences were found between the general characteristics of the patients (P < 0.05), and no differences were shown in the nutritional indicators and markers of kidney disease (P < 0.05). Patients in group A showed significant decreases in levels of C-reactive protein, IL-6, TNF-α, and the IL-10/IL-6 ratio after 12 weeks of supplementation (P < 0.05). Patients in group B did not show any significant changes in concentrations of inflammatory markers during the intervention (P < 0.05). In conclusion, oral supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids produces a significant decrease in the concentrations of inflammation markers in patients with chronic kidney disease on hemodialysis. Novelty Oral supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids produced significant decreases in the concentrations of inflammation markers. This supplementation could be given to patients with uremic syndrome and coronary heart disease to reduce cardiovascular risk.