Early Enteral Nutrition in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19 Infection

Assessing medication use patterns by clinical outcomes severity among inpatients with COVID-19: A retrospective drug utilization study

PURPOSE

This study assessed medication patterns for inpatients at a central hospital in Portugal and explored their relationships with clinical outcomes in COVID-19 cases.

METHODS

A retrospective study analyzed inpatient medication data, coded using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system, from electronic patient records. It investigated the association between medications and clinical severity outcomes such as ICU admissions, respiratory/circulatory support needs, and hospital discharge status, including mortality (identified by ICD-10-CM/PCS codes). Multivariate analyses incorporating demographic data and comorbidities were used to adjust for potential confounders and understand the impact of medication patterns on disease progression and outcomes.

RESULTS

The analysis of 2688 hospitalized COVID-19 patients (55.3% male, average age 62.8 years) revealed a significant correlation between medication types and intensity and disease severity. Cases requiring ICU admission or ECMO support often involved blood and blood-forming organ drugs. Increased use of nervous system and genitourinary hormones was observed in nonsurvivors. Corticosteroids, like dexamethasone, were common in critically ill patients, while tocilizumab was used in ECMO cases. Medications for the alimentary tract, metabolism, and cardiovascular system, although widely prescribed, were linked to more severe cases. Invasive mechanical ventilation correlated with higher usage of systemic anti-infectives and musculoskeletal medications. Trends in co-prescribing blood-forming drugs with those for acid-related disorders, analgesics, and antibacterials were associated with intensive interventions and worse outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights complex medication regimens in managing severe COVID-19, underscoring specific drug patterns associated with critical health outcomes. Further research is needed to explore these patterns.

Prone position, time to reach nutrition target, and energy/protein achievement rate on the seventh day of intensive care unit stay in patients with COVID-19: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the mean time to reach the energy (EAR) and protein (PAR) achievement rate among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) who did or did not undergo prone position (PP) therapy in the first week of their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), and the interaction of these nutrition therapy indicators on the association between PP and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This cohort study used retrospective data collected from medical records of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU (≥18 years). We collected nutrition data, clinical information, prescription of PP, and its frequency during the first week, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

PP therapy was administered to 75.2% of 153 patients (61.5 ± 14.8 years, 57.6% males) during the first week of their ICU stay. Patients who underwent PP reached nutrition therapy goals later (4 [3-6] vs 3 [2-4] days; P = 0.030) and had lower EAR (91.9 ± 25.7 vs 101.6 ± 84.0; P = 0.002) and PAR (88.0 ± 27.7 vs 98.1 ± 13.5; P = 0.009) in comparison to those who did not receive PP. Grouping patients who underwent PP according to the EAR (≥70% or <70%) did not show any differences in the incidence of ICU death, duration of mechanical ventilation, or ICU stay (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this exploratory study, PP was associated with a delayed time to reach the nutrition target and the lowest EAR and estimated protein requirement on the seventh day of ICU stay in patients with COVID-19. Permissive enteral nutrition prescription in patients who underwent PP was not associated with worse clinical outcomes.

Influence of early enteral nutrition plus probiotics on intestinal function of senile patients with sepsis

PURPOSE

This research project aimed to discuss the effect of early enteral nutrition (EEN) plus probiotics on intestinal function of senile patients with sepsis.

METHODS

108 senile sepsis patients admitted to our hospital from January 2019 to January 2022 were selected in this retrospective study. These patients including 50 cases in a control group (CG) and 58 cases in a research group (RG). Both groups received EEN, but the research group was given EEN plus probiotics. The two cohorts of patients were compared with respect to treatment efficacy, intestinal mucosal barrier, nutritional status and 28-day mortality. Cox regression was performed to analyze the prognostic factors of elderly patients with sepsis.

RESULTS

Compared to the CG, the RG had evidently higher overall response rate and post-treatment albumin (Alb) and prealbumin (PA) levels, as well as statistically lower intestinal fatty acid binding protein, diamine oxidase, D-lactate and 28-day mortality. Furthermore, Alb and PA were identified as independent predictors of prognosis in elderly patients with sepsis.

CONCLUSIONS

EEN supplemented with probiotics is superior to EEN alone in the treatment of senile patients with sepsis. This combined regimen can significantly improve intestinal function, nutritional status and prognosis of patients. Moreover, Alb and PA are independently related to the prognosis of elderly patients with sepsis.

Risk of Malnutrition in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Studies have reported that COVID-19 may increase the risk of malnutrition among patients. However, the prevalence of such risk in hospitalized COVID-19 patients is uncertain due to the inconsistent use of assessment methods. (2) Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched to identify studies on the nutritional status of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. A pooled prevalence of malnutrition risk evaluated by Nutrition Risk Score (NRS-2002) was obtained using a random effects model. Differences by study-level characteristics were examined by hospitalization setting, time of assessment, age, and country. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle−Ottawa Scale. (3) Results: 53 studies from 17 countries were identified and summarized. A total of 17 studies using NRS-2002, including 3614 COVID-19 patients were included in the primary meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of risk of malnutrition was significantly higher among ICU patients (92.2%, 95% CI: 85.9% to 96.8%) than among general ward patients (70.7%, 95% CI: 56.4% to 83.2%) (p = 0.002). No significant differences were found between age groups (≥65 vs. <65 years, p = 0.306) and countries (p = 0.893). (4) Conclusions: High risk of malnutrition is common and concerning in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, suggesting that malnutrition screening and nutritional support during hospitalization are needed.

Nutrition therapy in the intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from the ISIIC point prevalence study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nutrition therapy for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients involves complex decision-making, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the use of nutrition therapy in ICU patients with and without COVID-19 infections.

METHODS

Nutrition therapy was evaluated during a world-wide one-day prevalence study focused on implementation of the ABCDEF bundle (A: regular pain assessment, B: both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, C: regular sedation assessment, D: regular delirium assessment, E: early mobility and exercise, and F: family engagement and empowerment) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Basic ICU and patient demographics including nutrition therapy delivery were collected on the survey day. Physical activity for patients with and without COVID infections was categorized using the ICU mobility scale (IMS). Multivariable regression analysis of nutrition was conducted using ICU parameters.

RESULTS

The survey included 627 non-COVID and 602 COVID patients. A higher proportion of COVID-19 patients received energy ≥20 kcal/kg/day (55% vs. 45%; p = 0.0007) and protein ≥1.2 g/kg/day (45% vs. 35%; p = 0.0011) compared to non-COVID patients. Enteral nutrition was provided to most COVID patients even with prone positioning (91%). Despite nutrition therapy, IMS was extremely low in both groups; median IMS was 1 in non-COVID patients and 0 in COVID patients. The rate of energy delivery ≥20 kcal/kg/day was significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 infections in the subgroup of ICU days ≤5 days and IMS ≤2. Having a dedicated ICU nutritionist/dietitian was significantly associated with appropriate energy delivery in patients both with and without COVID-19 infections, but not with protein delivery.

CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with COVID-19 infections received higher energy and protein delivery. Generally low mobility levels highlight the need to optimize early mobilization with nutrition therapy in all ICU patients.

Administration of enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal complications in Covid-19 critical patients in prone position

Background

The prone position (PP) used in the treatment of critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, may be a barrier to enteral nutrition (EN). This study aimed to analyze the effectiveness and complications of EN in the PP, as well as clinical outcomes.

Methods

Prospective cohort study with patients in EN and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), on mechanical ventilation (MV), which whom needed or not PP. Gastrointestinal intolerances (GII) related to PP were evaluated, and correlated with possible confounding factors. EN, days on MV, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) length of stay, hospital length of stay, ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and mortality were analyzed. The data were evaluated daily and compared prone group (PG=57) and supine group (SG=69).

Results

The PP was associated with GII (P=0.000) and presented in 32 patients (26,44%) with no difference among groups. Association between epinephrine (P=0.003), vasopressin (P=0.018), and GII was observed. There was no difference between the total volume of enteral nutrition (TVEN) infused in the groups. However, the mean EN infused for the days when the patient was on PP was (70.0% ± 31.5) and for the days in supine position was (74.8% ± 27.3), P= 0.006. The PG had a longer time on MV (P=0.005) and ICU (P=0.003) and PP was associated with VAP (P=<0.001). The infused TVEN showed no association with VAP (P=0.09).

Conclusion

PP was a determining factor in GII and proved to be a risk factor for VAP, but the EN protocol seems to have ensured an adequate EN supply in PP and be a safe alternative.

Nutrition support practices for critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2: A multicentre observational study in Singapore

INTRODUCTION

To improve the nutritional care and resource allocation of critically ill patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), we described their characteristics, treatment modalities and clinical outcomes, and compared their nutrition interventions against the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) recommendations.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study conducted in 5 tertiary hospitals in Singapore. Characteristics, treatment modalities, clinical outcomes and nutrition interventions of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 who received enteral and parenteral nutrition were collected between January and May 2020.

RESULTS

Among the 83 critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2, 22 (28%) were obese, 45 (54%) had hypertension, and 21 (25%) had diabetes. Neuromuscular blockade, prone therapy and dialysis were applied in 70% (58), 47% (39) and 35% (29) of the patients, respectively. Refeeding hypophosphataemia and hospital mortality occurred respectively in 6% (5) and 18% (15) of the critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2. Late enteral nutrition and cardiovascular comorbidities were associated with higher hospital mortality (adjusted relative risk 9.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.25-35.99; 6.30, 95% CI 1.15-34.40, respectively). Prone therapy was not associated with a higher incidence of high gastric residual volume (≥250mL). The minimum caloric (15kcal/kg) and protein (1.2g/kg) recommendations of ASPEN were achieved in 54% (39) and 0% of the patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The high obesity prevalence and frequent usage of neuromuscular blockade, prone therapy, and dialysis had considerable implications for the nutritional care of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2. They also did not receive adequate calories and protein. More audits should be conducted to refine nutritional interventions and guidelines for this ever-evolving disease.

Gastrostomy tubes: Fundamentals, periprocedural considerations, and best practices

Gastrostomy tube placement is a procedure that achieves enteral access for nutrition, decompression, and medication administration. Preprocedural evaluation and selection of patients is necessary to provide optimal benefit and reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs). Appropriate indications, contraindications, ethical considerations, and comorbidities of patients referred for gastrostomy placement should be weighed and balanced. Additionally, endoscopist should consider either a transoral or transabdominal approach is appropriate, and radiologic or surgical gastrostomy tube placement is needed. However, medical history, physical examination, and imaging prior to the procedure should be considered to tailor the appropriate approach and reduce the risk of AEs.

The Effects of Enteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 could have impaired nutrient absorption due to disruption of the normal intestinal mucosa. They are often in a state of high inflammation, increased stress and catabolism as well as a significant increase in energy and protein requirements. Therefore, timely enteral nutrition support and the provision of optimal nutrients are essential in preventing malnutrition in these patients. Aim: This review aims to evaluate the effects of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-Analysis framework and PICO. Searches were conducted in databases, including EMBASE, Health Research databases and Google Scholar. Searches were conducted from database inception until 3 February 2022. The reference lists of articles were also searched for relevant articles. Results: Seven articles were included in the systematic review, and four articles were included in the meta-analysis. Two distinct areas were identified from the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis: the impact of enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal intolerance associated with enteral nutrition. The impact of enteral nutrition was further sub-divided into early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition and enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutrition. The results of the meta-analysis of the effects of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19 showed that, overall, enteral nutrition was effective in significantly reducing the risk of mortality in these patients compared with the control with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79, 0.99, p = 0.04). Following sub-group analysis, the early enteral nutrition group also showed a significant reduction in the risk of mortality with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79, 1.00, p = 0.05). The Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) of mortality in patients with COVID-19 by early enteral nutrition was 11%. There was a significant reduction in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the early enteral nutrition group compared with the delayed enteral nutrition group. There was no significant difference between enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition in relation to mortality (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59, 1.28, p = 0.48). Concerning the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay and days on mechanical ventilation, while there were reductions in the number of days in the enteral nutrition group compared to the control (delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition), the differences were not significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The results showed that early enteral nutrition significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the risk of mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, early enteral nutrition or enteral nutrition did not significantly (p > 0.05) reduce the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay and days on mechanical ventilation compared to delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition. More studies are needed to examine the effect of early enteral nutrition in patients with COVID-19.