Does Delaying Early Intravenous Fat Emulsion during Parenteral Nutrition Reduce Infections during Critical Illness?

Parenteral nutrition in clinical practice: International challenges and strategies

PURPOSE

Parenteral nutrition (PN) is an established therapy when oral/enteral feeding is not sufficient or is contraindicated, but nevertheless PN remains a complex, high-alert medication that is susceptible to errors that may affect patient safety. Over time, considerable progress has been made to make PN practices safer. The purpose of this article is to address ongoing challenges to improve the PN use process from prescription to administration and monitoring, and to outline practical aspects fostering the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of PN, as discussed at the International Safety and Quality of PN Summit.

SUMMARY

Opportunities to improve the PN use process in clinical practice include the promotion of inter-disciplinary communication, vigilant surveillance for complications, staff education to increase competency, and more consistent use of advanced technologies that allow automated safety checks throughout the PN process. Topics covered include considerations on PN formulations, including the value of intravenous lipid emulsions (ILEs), trends in compounding PN, the current and future role of market-authorized multi-chamber PN bags containing all 3 macronutrients (amino acids, glucose/dextrose, and ILE) in the United States and in Europe, and strategies to cope with the increasing global problem of PN product shortages.

CONCLUSION

This review outlines potential strategies to use in clinical practice to overcome ongoing challenges throughout the PN use process, and ultimately promote PN patient safety.

Lipid-Enriched Parenteral Nutrition and Bloodstream Infections in Hospitalized Patients: Is It a Real Concern?

Today, few clinicians are still convinced that lipids are sepsis risk factors in patients receiving parenteral nutrition. This dogma is principally based on old literature. This review deals with the most recent literature search that provided up-to-date data over the past ten years. Systematic research was performed on Pubmed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science. The recent evidence does not justify the exclusion of lipid emulsions in patients receiving parenteral nutrition for fear of bloodstream infection risk. Moreover, lipids represent a substantial proportion of the energy source providing essential fatty acids, potentially improving clinical outcomes in patients often malnourished. Understanding the actual risk factors of sepsis during parenteral nutrition is necessary to optimize patient nutritional status and care and avoid essential fatty acid deficiency. There is an urgent need to make updated nutrition training available at all levels of medical education.

ASPEN Lipid Injectable Emulsion Safety Recommendations, Part 1: Background and Adult Considerations

Lipid injectable emulsions (ILEs) are complex pharmaceutical formulations used as a source of energy and essential fatty acids in parenteral nutrition. Issues associated with ILE use are distinctly different from oral fat and arise from emulsion stability, dose, and infusion tolerance. Since 1975, soybean oil has been the consistent source oil used in ILE formulations in the US. Partly because of safety concerns with the soybean-based ILE and frequent and long-standing problems with product inventory shortages, new ILE products have become available. Gaps in ILE best practices create a risk for ILE safety errors in prescribing, compounding, and administration of these products. This paper provides information on appropriate indications, dosing, and methods to avoid potential errors with ILE products in the US. This paper (Part 1) will focus on ILE background, information, and recommendations for adult patients, whereas Part 2 of this series will focus on neonatal and pediatric patient-specific information.

Controversies in the Use of Lipid Injectable Emulsion in Hospitalized Patients

Soybean oil-based lipid injectable emulsion (SO-based ILE) is an 18-carbon, ω-6 macronutrient providing a concentrated source of calories, which can be administered in or with parenteral nutrition to patients unable to tolerate or consume adequate enteral nutrition. Beyond the provision of energy, SO-based ILE provides linoleic and linolenic acid, 2 essential fatty acids necessary for the prevention of essential fatty acid deficiency. However, SO-based ILE with its high levels of ω-6 fatty acids, long-chain triglycerides, phospholipid emulsifiers, and glycerin has been associated with worsening clinical outcomes, including increase of infections, lengthier intensive care and hospital stay, and prolonged mechanical ventilation. Recognizing this, studies have investigated omitting SO-based ILE in the critically ill patient for the first 7 days to observe if clinical outcomes are improved. Unfortunately, there is extremely limited research, and what is available is controversial. National guidelines have analyzed the studies, and they too are challenged to define a clear, high quality of evidence recommendation. It is important for the healthcare clinician to understand the research around this controversy to make best decisions for their patients.

Updates in Nutrition Support for Critically Ill Adult Patients

Specialized nutrition support is often employed in critically ill patients who are unable to maintain volitional intake. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) recently updated guidelines for the provision of nutrition support in critically ill patients. The purpose of this review is to summarize key changes from the previous guidelines as they relate to recently published literature, which will aid the hospital pharmacist in optimizing nutrition support therapies in the critical care setting.

Parenteral Nutrition and Infection Risk in the Intensive Care Unit: A Practical Guide for the Bedside Clinician

The safety of parenteral nutrition (PN) administration in critically ill patients has been the subject of much controversy. Historically, PN administration has been associated with an increased risk of bacterial and fungal infections, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Much of the data showing increased infectious complications compared with either no nutrition or enteral nutrition was derived from early studies conducted in the 1980s-2000s. Poor glucose control and hyperalimentation are confounding factors in many early studies, making it difficult to determine the true PN infection risks. While PN studies conducted during the past 10 years have failed to show the same infection rates, these risks continue to be cited as dogma. Potential reasons for such discordant results include improved glycemic control, avoidance of overfeeding, and improved sterility and central venous catheter care. Understanding the true infectious risk of PN administration in the intensive care unit is necessary to optimize patient care, as inappropriately withholding such nutrition is potentially deleterious. This review is meant to serve as a practical guide to the bedside clinician who is evaluating the risks and benefits of initiating PN in a critically ill patient. Each component of PN will be evaluated based on risk of infection, and the potential ways to mitigate risks will be discussed.

Three-in-one parenteral nutrition in neonates and pediatric patients: risks and benefits

Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a life-sustaining therapy designed to deliver essential nutrients to patients unable to meet nutrition needs via the enteral route. PN may be delivered via a 2-in-1 system (one solution containing amino acids, dextrose, electrolytes, vitamins, minerals, and fluids and one solution containing intravenous fat emulsions [IVFEs]) or via a 3-in-1 system (all nutrients mixed in one container). Although the use of 3-in-1 PN solutions is not necessarily therapeutically advantageous, certain benefits may exist such as the potential to reduce the risk of contamination due to decreased manipulations; ease of administration, particularly in the home care setting; possible cost savings; and reduced IVFE wastage. However, the incorporation of IVFE in 3-in-1 solutions also presents unique risks for the neonatal and pediatric population such as decreased stability, increased lipid globule size, decreased sterility and the potential for increased microbial growth/infectious complications, the need to use a larger filter size, precipitation and compatibility risks, and an increased chance of catheter occlusion. This review outlines the unique issues and challenges to be considered when formulating neonatal and pediatric 3-in-1 PN admixtures. While 3-in-1 PN solutions may be advantageous for certain pediatric populations, specifically those dependent on home PN, the risks do not outweigh the benefits in neonatal patients, and use should be avoided in this population.

Evaluating the significance of delaying intravenous lipid therapy during the first week of hospitalization in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) published guidelines in 2009 recommending against the use of intravenous lipids for parenteral nutrition (PN) within the first week of hospitalization in critically ill patients. This grade D recommendation is controversial as it is based on the results of 2 studies that evaluated approximately 100 patients and did not evaluate glycemic control. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes associated with the receipt of lipids within the first week in the intensive care unit (ICU) compared with withholding lipids.

METHODS

This retrospective study included critically ill adult patients who received PN at a large, academic medical center. This study examined the incidence of new infections with receipt of early lipids (n = 66) compared with withholding lipids in the first 7 days (n = 29). Secondary outcomes included mortality, hyperglycemia, ICU length of stay (LOS), and total LOS.

RESULTS

There was no difference between the early lipids and late lipids groups in the incidence of new infections after the initiation of PN (40.9% vs 55.2%, P = .264). Additionally, there was no difference between groups for any of the secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Withholding lipids within the first 7 days of hospitalization in the ICU was not associated with a significant reduction in infections, ICU or total LOS, or mortality. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial is needed to further evaluate the effects of lipid administration in the critically ill.