Effect of intradialytic parenteral nutrition in patients with malnutrition–inflammation complex syndrome on body weight, inflammation, serum lipids and adipocytokines: results from a pilot study

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.

Effect of nutritional support on nutritional status and inflammation in malnourished patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis

INTRODUCTION

Protein energy wasting/malnutrition is a strong predictor of morbidity and mortality in patients on maintenance hemodialysis (MHD). We aimed to compare the effects of oral and/or intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) support on nutritional and inflammatory parameters in malnourished patients with MHD.

METHODS

This is an observational study of 56 malnourished patients on MHD. We offered combined oral nutritional support (ONS) and IDPN for 12 months to all patients. Depending on patient choices for treatment, they were classified into four groups: group 1 (ONS only), group 2 (IDPN only), group 3 (both ONS and IDPN), and group 4 (patients who refused artificial nutrition support and only followed dietary advice). Normalized protein catabolic rate (nPCR), malnutrition inflammation score (MIS), and body composition (fat mass [FM], muscle mass [MM]) were assessed monthly.

FINDINGS

The mean serum albumin levels of groups 2 and 3 significantly increased with the intervention, whereas that of group 4 significantly decreased. The mean nPCR levels of groups 2 and 3 significantly increased. Group 3 had the most significant positive change in serum albumin and nPCR levels. Mean serum C-reactive protein (CRP) levels of groups 1, 2, and 3 decreased, whereas those of group 4 increased. A ∆ in CRP was only identified in group 3. The MIS of groups 1, 2, and 3 significantly decreased whereas that of group 4 significantly increased. The ∆% in FM was 1.1, 1.9, 9.1, and -2.9 for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, and that in MM was -0.6, 4.4, 6.9, and -7.9 for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Compared to monotherapy or nutritional counseling, the choice of ONS plus IDPN is associated with improved nutritional status and decreased inflammation in malnourished patients on MHD. Nonetheless, interventional studies must be conducted to confirm these observations.

Efficacy of intradialytic amino acids on nutritional status in children with stage 5 chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Protein energy wasting (PEW) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with stage 5 chronic kidney disease (CKD 5). Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) has been used as a therapy for preventing and treating PEW in children with CKD 5 when other conventional modalities fail. However, not enough data is available to define its effectiveness in treating malnutrition in children. This study aims to investigate potential benefits of IDPN in Egyptian children with CKD 5.

METHODS

In this prospective, placebo-controlled, parallel-group single blinded study, we enrolled 50 CKD 5 patients; 25 patients (intervention group) received intravenous amino acids (KIDIMN), while 25 patients (control group) received normal saline as placebo, each given during regular dialysis 3 times a week for 9 months. Patients were subjected to nutritional assessment at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up using height Z-score, hand grip strength (HGS) for muscle power assessment, body composition monitor (BCM) for assessing lean tissue mass (LTM) and adipose tissue mass (ATM), and biochemical measures including serum albumin, serum triglyceride, and serum cholesterol.

RESULTS

When comparing baseline and 9-month follow-up values, significant improvement was recorded in height Z-score, LTM, and serum albumin in the intervention group unlike the control group where no significant changes were recorded.

CONCLUSION

IDPN is proposed to be an effective method for preventing and treating malnutrition in children with CKD 5. However, further multi-centric studies with larger sample size and longer duration of follow-up are still recommended.

Effectiveness of Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition in Treating Protein-Energy Wasting in Hemodialysis: A Rapid Systematic Review

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) is commonly requested before recommended therapies in malnourished patients on hemodialysis. This review provides updated critical synthesis of the evidence on the use of IDPN in patients on hemodialysis. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and other sources to identify evidence. Two reviewers sequentially selected studies, abstracted data, rated study quality, and synthesized evidence using predefined criteria. IDPN did not improve clinically relevant outcomes compared with dietary counseling or oral supplementation and had varied results compared with usual care in 12 studies. Data are limited on adverse events or cost-effectiveness of IDPN. Important limitations of the evidence, including limited measurement of clinically important outcomes, methodological concerns, and heterogeneity between studies, weaken our confidence in these findings. IDPN may be a reasonable treatment option for patients who fail to respond or cannot receive recommended treatments, but the broad usage of IDPN before recommended treatment options does not appear warranted.

Could intradialytic nutrition improve refractory anaemia in patients undergoing haemodialysis?

BACKGROUND

This prospective randomised study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) therapy in malnourished patients with refractory anaemia.

METHODS

Forty patients who were malnourished with a BMI not greater than 23 (17-23) kg/m² , undergoing regular HD were included. Of those, 20 patients received 500-1000 ml of IDPN at a rate of 250-300 ml/h at each HD session three days per week for six consecutive months. The other 20 patients did not receive IDPN infusion. The malnutrition inflammation score (MIS) and haematological parameters were recorded at baseline and after three and six months.

RESULTS

Mean haemoglobin levels, BMI and serum albumin were significantly increased while MIS was significantly decreased after the 3rd and 6th months of IDPN.

CONCLUSION

IDPN has a good role in improving refractory anaemia by significantly increasing haemoglobin levels, body weight, and serum albumin levels. The intervention also significantly decreases the MIS of patients.

When Is Parenteral Nutrition Appropriate?

Parenteral nutrition (PN) represents one of the most notable achievements of modern medicine, serving as a therapeutic modality for all age groups across the healthcare continuum. PN offers a life-sustaining option when intestinal failure prevents adequate oral or enteral nutrition. However, providing nutrients by vein is an expensive form of nutrition support, and serious adverse events can occur. In an effort to provide clinical guidance regarding PN therapy, the Board of Directors of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) convened a task force to develop consensus recommendations regarding appropriate PN use. The recommendations contained in this document aim to delineate appropriate PN use and promote clinical benefits while minimizing the risks associated with the therapy. These consensus recommendations build on previous ASPEN clinical guidelines and consensus recommendations for PN safety. They are intended to guide evidence-based decisions regarding appropriate PN use for organizations and individual professionals, including physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and other clinicians involved in providing PN. They not only support decisions related to initiating and managing PN but also serve as a guide for developing quality monitoring tools for PN and for identifying areas for further research. Finally, the recommendations contained within the document are also designed to inform decisions made by additional stakeholders, such as policy makers and third-party payers, by providing current perspectives regarding the use of PN in a variety of healthcare settings.

Nutrition prescription to achieve positive outcomes in chronic kidney disease: a systematic review

In Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD), management of diet is important in prevention of disease progression and symptom management, however evidence on nutrition prescription is limited. Recent international CKD guidelines and literature was reviewed to address the following question “What is the appropriate nutrition prescription to achieve positive outcomes in adult patients with chronic kidney disease?” Databases included in the search were Medline and CINAHL using EBSCOhost search engine, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published from 2000 to 2009. International guidelines pertaining to nutrition prescription in CKD were also reviewed from 2000 to 2013. Three hundred and eleven papers and eight guidelines were reviewed by three reviewers. Evidence was graded as per the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia criteria. The evidence from thirty six papers was tabulated under the following headings: protein, weight loss, enteral support, vitamin D, sodium, fat, fibre, oral nutrition supplements, nutrition counselling, including protein and phosphate, nutrients in peritoneal dialysis solution and intradialytic parenteral nutrition, and was compared to international guidelines. While more evidence based studies are warranted, the customary nutrition prescription remains satisfactory with the exception of Vitamin D and phosphate. In these two areas, additional research is urgently needed given the potential of adverse outcomes for the CKD patient.

Daily protein intake and survival in patients on peritoneal dialysis

BACKGROUND

The decreased protein intake may lead to protein-energy wasting and poor survival. It is unknown what the appropriate protein intake in patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) is. We aimed to explore the appropriate levels of daily protein intake (DPI) in favor of outcome in a large PD cohort.

METHODS

Our study enrolled 305 incident patients, who could be followed regularly. Demographic data were collected at baseline. Biochemical, dietary and nutritional data and dialysis adequacy were measured at the baseline and thereafter at regular intervals. Outcome events included all-cause death, cardiovascular disease (CVD) death and first-episode peritonitis.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients died during the 44.5-month follow-up, 41.7% of whom died from CVD. A total of 129 cases first-episode peritonitis were observed. Patients with a high tertile of baseline DPI (≥ 0.94 g/kg/day) had significantly higher serum albumin, prealbumin, hemoglobin, lean body mass and handgrip strength compared to the low tertile group (≤ 0.73 g/kg/day) (P < 0.05-0.001). They also had significantly lower risk for all-cause, CVD death and first-episode peritonitis than the low tertile group adjusted for commonly recognized confounders. Although patients in the middle tertile of DPI (0.74-0.93 g/kg/day) did not show significant differences in the majority of nutritional markers, all-cause and CVD mortality compared to high tertile group, they had a trend to a negative nitrogen balance and similar risk for first-episode peritonitis to the low tertile group. The DPI included as a time-dependent variable could not predict any outcome events in multivariate Cox models.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study revealed that DPI <0.73 g/kg/day was associated with protein-energy wasting and worst outcome for PD patients. The DPI >0.94 g/kg/day was in favor of nutrition status and long-term outcome in this population.