Nutrition management of obese critically ill adults: A survey of critical care dietitians in Australia and New Zealand

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.

Indirect calorimetry: should it be part of routine care or only used in specific situations?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Indirect calorimetry (IC) is increasingly recommended to guide energy delivery in the ICU. This review aims to provide a critical overview of current literature in support of these recommendations.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is insufficient evidence to ascertain a mortality benefit from IC-guided energy delivery. However, large variations in energy expenditure during critical illness pose a risk for significant under- and overfeeding if IC is not routinely used.

SUMMARY

Even in the absence of demonstrable clinical benefits, there is a strong physiological rationale in favor of performing IC. Measurements can be prioritized in complex patients and should be repeated during prolonged ICU stay.

Obesity and critical care nutrition: current practice gaps and directions for future research

Background

This review has been developed following a panel discussion with an international group of experts in the care of patients with obesity in the critical care setting and focuses on current best practices in malnutrition screening and assessment, estimation of energy needs for patients with obesity, the risks and management of sarcopenic obesity, the value of tailored nutrition recommendations, and the emerging role of immunonutrition. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) increasingly present with overweight and obesity that require individualized nutrition considerations due to underlying comorbidities, immunological factors such as inflammation, and changes in energy expenditure and other aspects of metabolism. While research continues to accumulate, important knowledge gaps persist in recognizing and managing the complex nutritional needs in ICU patients with obesity. Available malnutrition screening and assessment tools are limited in patients with obesity due to a lack of validation and heterogeneous factors impacting nutrition status in this population. Estimations of energy and protein demands are also complex in patients with obesity and may include estimations based upon ideal, actual, or adjusted body weight. Evidence is still sparse on the role of immunonutrition in patients with obesity, but the presence of inflammation that impacts immune function may suggest a role for these nutrients in hemodynamically stable ICU patients. Educational efforts are needed for all clinicians who care for complex cases of critically ill patients with obesity, with a focus on strategies for optimal nutrition and the consideration of issues such as weight stigma and bias impacting the delivery of care.

Conclusions

Current nutritional strategies for these patients should be undertaken with a focus on individualized care that considers the whole person, including the possibility of preexisting comorbidities, altered metabolism, and chronic stigma, which may impact the provision of nutritional care. Additional research should focus on the applicability of current guidelines and evidence for nutrition therapy in populations with obesity, especially in the setting of critical illness.

Nutrition priorities in obese critically ill patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

During critical illness, several neuroendocrine, inflammatory, immune, adipokine, and gastrointestinal tract hormone pathways are activated; some of which are more intensified among obese compared with nonobese patients. Nutrition support may mitigate some of these effects. Nutrition priorities in obese critically ill patients include screening for nutritional risk, estimation of energy and protein requirement, and provision of macronutrients and micronutrients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Estimation of energy requirement in obese critically ill patients is challenging because of variations in body composition among obese patients and absence of reliable predictive equations for energy expenditure. Whereas hypocaloric nutrition with high protein has been advocated in obese critically ill patients, supporting data are scarce. Recent studies did not show differences in outcomes between hypocaloric and eucaloric nutrition, except for better glycemic control. Sarcopenia is common among obese patients, and the provision of increased protein intake has been suggested to mitigate catabolic changes especially after the acute phase of critical illness. However, high-quality data on high protein intake in these patients are lacking. Micronutrient deficiencies among obese critically ill patients are common but the role of their routine supplementation requires further study.

SUMMARY

An individualized approach for nutritional support may be needed for obese critically ill patients but high-quality evidence is lacking. Future studies should focus on nutrition priorities in this population, with efficient and adequately powered studies.

Screening, Diagnosis and Management of Sarcopenia and Frailty in Hospitalized Older Adults: Recommendations from the Australian and New Zealand Society for Sarcopenia and Frailty Research (ANZSSFR) Expert Working Group

Sarcopenia and frailty are highly prevalent conditions in older hospitalized patients, which are associated with a myriad of adverse clinical outcomes. This paper, prepared by a multidisciplinary expert working group from the Australian and New Zealand Society for Sarcopenia and Frailty Research (ANZSSFR), provides an up-to-date overview of current evidence and recommendations based on a narrative review of the literature for the screening, diagnosis, and management of sarcopenia and frailty in older patients within the hospital setting. It also includes suggestions on potential pathways to implement change to encourage widespread adoption of these evidence-informed recommendations within hospital settings. The expert working group concluded there was insufficient evidence to support any specific screening tool for sarcopenia and recommends an assessment of probable sarcopenia/sarcopenia using established criteria for all older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients or in younger patients with conditions (e.g., comorbidities) that may increase their risk of sarcopenia. Diagnosis of probable sarcopenia should be based on an assessment of low muscle strength (grip strength or five times sit-to-stand) with sarcopenia diagnosis including low muscle mass quantified from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance analysis or in the absence of diagnostic devices, calf circumference as a proxy measure. Severe sarcopenia is represented by the addition of impaired physical performance (slow gait speed). All patients with probable sarcopenia or sarcopenia should be investigated for causes (e.g., chronic/acute disease or malnutrition), and treated accordingly. For frailty, it is recommended that all hospitalized patients aged 70 years and older be screened using a validated tool [Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Hospital Frailty Risk Score, the FRAIL scale or the Frailty Index]. Patients screened as positive for frailty should undergo further clinical assessment using the Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index or information collected from a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). All patients identified as frail should receive follow up by a health practitioner(s) for an individualized care plan. To treat older hospitalized patients with probable sarcopenia, sarcopenia, or frailty, it is recommended that a structured and supervised multi-component exercise program incorporating elements of resistance (muscle strengthening), challenging balance, and functional mobility training be prescribed as early as possible combined with nutritional support to optimize energy and protein intake and correct any deficiencies. There is insufficient evidence to recommend pharmacological agents for the treatment of sarcopenia or frailty. Finally, to facilitate integration of these recommendations into hospital settings organization-wide approaches are needed, with the Spread and Sustain framework recommended to facilitate organizational culture change, with the help of 'champions' to drive these changes. A multidisciplinary team approach incorporating awareness and education initiatives for healthcare professionals is recommended to ensure that screening, diagnosis and management approaches for sarcopenia and frailty are embedded and sustained within hospital settings. Finally, patients and caregivers' education should be integrated into the care pathway to facilitate adherence to prescribed management approaches for sarcopenia and frailty.

Doubly labelled water for determining total energy expenditure in adult critically ill and acute care hospitalized inpatients: A scoping review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Doubly labelled water (DLW) is considered the reference standard method of measuring total energy expenditure (TEE), but there is limited information on its use in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and acute care setting. This scoping review aims to systematically summarize the available literature on TEE measured using DLW in these contexts.

METHODS

Four online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare and CINAHL) were searched up to Dec 12, 2020. Studies in English were included if they measured TEE using DLW in adults in the ICU and/or acute care setting. Key considerations, concerns and practical recommendations were identified and qualitatively synthesized.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 7582 studies and nine studies were included; one in the ICU and eight in the acute care setting. TEE was measured over 7-15-days, in predominantly clinically stable patients. DLW measurements were not commenced until four days post admission or surgery in one study and following a 10-14-day stabilization period on parenteral nutrition (PN) in three studies. Variable dosages of isotopes were administered, and several equations used to calculate TEE. Four main considerations were identified with the use of DLW in these settings: variation in background isotopic abundance; excess isotopes leaving body water as carbon dioxide or water; fluctuations in rates of isotope elimination and costs.

CONCLUSION

A stabilization period on intravenous fluid and PN regimens is recommended prior to DLW measurement. The DLW technique can be utilized in medically stable ICU and acute care patients, with careful considerations given to protocol design.

Protein prescription and delivery practices in critically ill adults: A survey of Australian and New Zealand intensive care dietitians

BACKGROUND

Protein provision is thought to be integral to attenuating muscle wasting in critical illness, yet patients receive half of that prescribed. As international guidelines lack definitive evidence to support recommendations, understanding clinicians' views relating to protein practices is of importance.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to describe Australia and New Zealand intensive care unit (ICU) dietitians' protein prescription and perceived delivery practices in critically ill adults, including common barriers and associations between ICU clinical experience and protein prescriptions for different clinical conditions.

METHODS

A 42-item descriptive quantitative survey of Australian and New Zealand intensive care dietitians was disseminated through nutrition and ICU society e-mailing lists. Data were collected on respondent demographics and reported protein practices including questions related to a multitrauma case study. Data were analysed using descriptive and content analysis and reported as n (%). Fisher's exact tests were used to compare experience and protein prescriptions.

RESULTS

Of the 67 responses received (one excluded due to >50% missing data), more than 80% of respondents stated they would prescribe 1.2-1.5 g protein/kg bodyweight/day for most critically ill patients, most commonly using European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines to support prescriptions (n = 61/66, 92%). Most respondents (n = 49/66, 74%) thought their practice achieved 61-80% of protein prescriptions, with frequently reported barriers including fasting periods (n = 59/66, 89%), avoiding energy overfeeding (n = 50/66, 76%), and gastrointestinal intolerance (n = 47/66, 71%). No associations between years of ICU experience and protein prescriptions for 14 of the 15 predefined clinical conditions were present.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian and New Zealand ICU dietitians use international guidelines to inform protein prescriptions of 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day for most clinical conditions, and protein prescriptions do not appear to be influenced by years of ICU experience. Key perceived barriers to protein delivery including avoidance of energy overfeeding and gastrointestinal intolerance could be explored to improve protein adequacy.