Current strategies of critical care assessment and therapy of the obese patient (hypocaloric feeding): what are we doing and what do we need to do?

Sleep patterns of patients receiving home parenteral nutrition: A home-based observational study

BACKGROUND

Patients supported with home parenteral nutrition (HPN) often report poor sleep; however, limited research has been conducted to objectively measure sleep patterns of HPN-dependent patients.

METHODS

We aimed to characterize the sleep patterns of patients receiving HPN through 7-day actigraphy in a home-based observational study. Sleep measures of clinical importance were derived from actigraphy, including sleep duration, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, and wake after sleep onset. Participants also completed validated sleep surveys.

RESULTS

Twenty participants completed all study procedures (mean [SD]: age = 51.6 [13.9] years, body mass index = 21.4  [4.6], and 80% female). The population median (IQR) for sleep duration, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency, and wake after sleep onset was 6.9 (1.1) h, 83.3% (7.8%), 11.8 (7.1) min, and 57.2 (39.9) min, respectively, and 55%, 60%, 35%, and 100% of participants did not meet the recommendations for these measures from the National Sleep Foundation. Sixty-five percent of participants reported napping at least once during the 7-day period. Based on the Insomnia Severity Index, 70% of participants were classified as having subthreshold or more severe insomnia. Based on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, 85% were classified as having significant sleep disturbance.

CONCLUSION

Most HPN-dependent patients likely have disrupted sleep largely driven by difficulty maintaining sleep. The extent to which HPN contributed to poor sleep cannot be elucidated from this observational study. Addressing known factors that contribute to sleep disruption and considering sleep interventions may improve the overall quality of life of patients receiving HPN.

Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically-ill adults

BACKGROUND

There are controversies about the amount of calories and the type of nutritional support that should be given to critically-ill people. Several authors advocate the potential benefits of hypocaloric nutrition support, but the evidence is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support in comparison with standard nutrition support for critically-ill adults SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS (from inception to 20 June 2017) with a specific strategy for each database. We also assessed three websites, conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted leaders in the field and the pharmaceutical industry for undetected/unpublished studies. There was no restriction by date, language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing hypocaloric nutrition support to normo- or hypercaloric nutrition support or no nutrition support (e.g. fasting) in adults hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We meta-analysed data for comparisons in which clinical heterogeneity was low. We conducted prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and post hoc analyses, including meta-regression. Our primary outcomes were: mortality (death occurred during the ICU and hospital stay, or 28- to 30-day all-cause mortality); length of stay (days stayed in the ICU and in the hospital); and Infectious complications. Secondary outcomes included: length of mechanical ventilation. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 trials, with a total of 3129 ICU participants from university-associated hospitals in the USA, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Greece, Germany and Iran. There are two ongoing studies. Participants suffered from medical and surgical conditions, with a variety of inclusion criteria. Four studies used parenteral nutrition and nine studies used only enteral nutrition; it was unclear whether the remaining two used parenteral nutrition. Most of them could not achieve the proposed caloric targets, resulting in small differences in the administered calories between intervention and control groups. Most studies were funded by the US government or non-governmental associations, but three studies received funding from industry. Five studies did not specify their funding sources.The included studies suffered from important clinical and statistical heterogeneity. This heterogeneity did not allow us to report pooled estimates of the primary and secondary outcomes, so we have described them narratively.When comparing hypocaloric nutrition support with a control nutrition support, for hospital mortality (9 studies, 1775 participants), the risk ratios ranged from 0.23 to 5.54; for ICU mortality (4 studies, 1291 participants) the risk ratios ranged from 0.81 to 5.54, and for mortality at 30 days (7 studies, 2611 participants) the risk ratios ranged from 0.79 to 3.00. Most of these estimates included the null value. The quality of the evidence was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Participants who received hypocaloric nutrition support compared to control nutrition support had a range of mean hospital lengths of stay of 15.70 days lower to 10.70 days higher (10 studies, 1677 participants), a range of mean ICU lengths of stay 11.00 days lower to 5.40 days higher (11 studies, 2942 participants) and a range of mean lengths of mechanical ventilation of 13.20 days lower to 8.36 days higher (12 studies, 3000 participants). The quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias in most studies, inconsistency and imprecision.The risk ratios for infectious complications (10 studies, 2804 participants) of each individual study ranged from 0.54 to 2.54. The quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecisionWe were not able to explain the causes of the observed heterogeneity using subgroup and sensitivity analyses or meta-regression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies had substantial clinical heterogeneity. We found very low-quality evidence about the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support on mortality in hospital, in the ICU and at 30 days, as well as in length of hospital and ICU stay, infectious complications and the length of mechanical ventilation. For these outcomes there is uncertainty about the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition, since the range of estimates includes both appreciable benefits and harms.Given these limitations, results must be interpreted with caution in the clinical field, considering the unclear balance of the risks and harms of this intervention. Future research addressing the clinical heterogeneity of participants and interventions, study limitations and sample size could clarify the effects of this intervention.

High-Protein Hypocaloric Nutrition for Non-Obese Critically Ill Patients

High-protein hypocaloric nutrition, tailored to each patient's muscle mass, protein-catabolic severity, and exogenous energy tolerance, is the most plausible nutrition therapy in protein-catabolic critical illness. Sufficient protein provision could mitigate the rapid muscle atrophy characteristic of this disease while providing urgently needed amino acids to the central protein compartment and sites of tissue injury. The protein dose may range from 1.5 to 2.5 g protein (1.8-3.0 g free amino acids)/kg dry body weight per day. Nutrition should be low in energy (≈70% of energy expenditure or ≈15 kcal/kg dry body weight per day) because efforts to match energy provision to energy expenditure are physiologically irrational, risk toxic energy overfeeding, and have repeatedly failed in large clinical trials to demonstrate clinical benefit. The American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition currently suggests high-protein hypocaloric nutrition for obese critically ill patients. Short-term high-protein hypocaloric nutrition is physiologically and clinically sensible for most protein-catabolic critically ill patients, whether obese or not.

Pilot Study to Explore the Accuracy of Current Prediction Equations in Assessing Energy Needs of Patients with Newly Diagnosed Glioblastoma Multiforme

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is rare, yet it is the most common brain malignancy and has a poor prognosis. In regard to GBM, there is a dearth of research on resting energy expenditure (REE) and the accuracy of extant prediction equations. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to compare measured REE (mREE) to commonly used prediction equations in newly diagnosed GBM patients. REE was collected by indirect calorimetry in 20 GBM patients. Calculated REE was derived from Harris-Benedict (again with weight adjusted for obesity), Mifflin-St Jeor, and the 20 kcal/kg body weight ratio method. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman analyses were used to compare group means, evaluate the bias, and find the limits of agreement. Clinical accuracy was assessed by determining the percentage of patients with predicted REE within ±10% of mREE. Subjects were evenly distributed with regard to gender, primarily Caucasian, and largely overweight or obese and had a mean age of 57 years. All equations overestimated mREE. Mifflin-St Jeor and adjusted Harris-Benedict had the narrowest limits of agreement and accurately predicted 60% and 65% of subjects, respectively. Clinicians should be aware of the discrepancy between commonly used prediction equations and REE. More research is needed to verify these findings and decipher the cause and significance in the GBM population.

Nutrition and metabolic support recommendations for the bariatric patient

Managing the metabolic needs of the patient with obesity is a challenge unto itself without the added demands of accounting for an altered gastrointestinal tract. Nevertheless, with about 200,000 bariatric procedures being performed annually in the United States, clinicians must be prepared to manage the critically ill bariatric surgery patient. This article reviews the recent literature relating to nutrient needs and metabolic support for the bariatric patient. Bariatric patients are at risk for several micronutrient deficiencies, including vitamins D and B₁₂, calcium, and iron; some bariatric procedures affect macronutrient needs as well. Literature on nutrition support guidelines for the bariatric population is limited. However, with an understanding of the anatomical and physiological effects of bariatric surgery, recent guidelines for critically ill patients with obesity can be applied to the bariatric surgery population. The unique needs of the bariatric population, such as susceptibility to micronutrient deficiencies and specialized access routes, must be considered to provide safe and efficacious nutrition support. Further research is necessary to develop specific nutrition support recommendations for the bariatric population.

Initiation of nutritional support is delayed in critically ill obese patients: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

A high catabolic rate characterizes the acute phase of critical illness. Guidelines recommend an early nutritional support, regardless of the previous nutritional status.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess whether the nutritional status of patients, which was defined by the body mass index (BMI) at admission in an intensive care unit (ICU), affected the time of nutritional support initiation.

DESIGN

We conducted a cohort study that reported a retrospective analysis of a multicenter ICU database (OUTCOMEREA) by using data prospectively entered from January 1997 to October 2012. Patients who needed orotracheal intubation within the first 72 h and >3 d were included.

RESULTS

Data from 3257 ICU stays were analyzed. The delay before feeding was different according to BMI groups (P = 0.035). The delay was longer in obese patients [BMI (in kg/m²) ≥30; n = 663] than in other patients with either low weight (BMI <20; n = 501), normal weight (BMI ≥20 and <25; n = 1135), or overweight (BMI ≥25 and <30; n = 958). The association between nutritional status and a delay in nutrition initiation was independent of potential confounding factors such as age, sex, and diabetes or other chronic diseases. In comparison with normal weight, the adjusted RR (95% CI) associated with a delayed nutrition initiation was 0.92 (0.86, 0.98) for patients with low weight, 1.00 (0.94, 1.05) for overweight patients, and 1.06 (1.00, 1.12) for obese patients (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

The initiation of nutritional support was delayed in obese ICU patients. Randomized controlled trials that address consequences of early compared with delayed beginnings of nutritional support in critically ill obese patients are needed.

Disease-specific nutrition therapy: one size does not fit all

INTRODUCTION

The delivery of adequate nutrition is an integral part of the care of the critically ill surgical patient, and the provision of nutrition may have a greater impact on outcome than many other therapies commonly employed in the treatment of certain disease states.

METHODS

A review of the existing literature was performed to summarize the evidence for utilizing disease-specific nutrition in critically ill surgical patients.

RESULTS

Enteral nutrition, unless specifically contraindicated, is always preferable to parenteral nutrition. Methodological heterogeneity and conflicting results plague research in immunonutrition, and routine use is not currently recommended in critically ill patients.

CONCLUSION

There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend the routine initial use of most disease-specific formulas, as most patients with the disease in question will tolerate standard enteral formulas. However, the clinician should closely monitor for signs of intolerance and utilize disease-specific formulas when appropriate.

Appropriate protein provision in critical illness: a systematic and narrative review

BACKGROUND

Widely varying recommendations have been published with regard to the appropriate amount of protein or amino acids to provide in critical illness.

OBJECTIVE

We carried out a systematic review of clinical trials that compared the metabolic or clinical effects of different protein intakes in adult critical illness and comprehensively reviewed all of the available evidence pertinent to the safe upper limit of protein provision in this setting.

DESIGN

MEDLINE was searched for clinical trials published in English between 1948 and 2012 that provided original data comparing the effects of different levels of protein intake on clinically relevant outcomes and evidence pertinent to the safe upper limit of protein provision to critically ill adults.

RESULTS

The limited amount and poor quality of the evidence preclude conclusions or clinical recommendations but strongly suggest that 2.0-2.5 g protein substrate · kg normal body weight⁻¹ · d⁻¹ is safe and could be optimum for most critically ill patients. At the present time, most critically ill adults receive less than half of the most common current recommendation, 1.5 g protein · kg⁻¹ · d⁻¹, for the first week or longer of their stay in an intensive care unit.

CONCLUSION

There is an urgent need for well-designed clinical trials to identify the appropriate level of protein provision in critical illness.