Quick Fix for Hospital-Acquired Malnutrition?

A paradigm shift in clinical nutrition

The current clinical nutrition paradigm is that decreased caloric intake, resulting in a caloric deficit, is central to the development disease-related malnutrition (DRM). In following with this paradigm, one should assume that nutrition interventions with artificially administered nutrition (food substitution paradigm) aimed at preventing a caloric deficit should result in the prevention and/or successful treatment of DRM. However, clear evidence demonstrates that the DRM observed in diverse illnesses is at least partially resistant to nutrition interventions aimed at preventing the development of a caloric deficit. Simply put, DRM cannot be prevented nor resolved through a nutrition intervention aimed solely on replacing what the person cannot or will not eat. It is time to stop oversimplifying nutrition therapy in clinical nutrition interventions as a food substitution issue, focusing instead on developing and testing innovative hypotheses aimed at a mechanistic understanding of how DRM develops. Through this effort, new paradigms should evolve. The aim of this opinion paper is to provide an overview of why we need a shift in the current paradigm.

Safety of increasing protein delivery with an enteral nutrition formula containing very high protein (VHP) and lower carbohydrate concentrations compared to conventional standard (SF) and high protein (HP) formulas

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Studies demonstrate that caloric restriction in the first seven days in the ICU is safe. The amount of protein that should be delivered, however, is still unclear with clinical trials suggesting mixed results. Despite some capacity to customize the delivery of protein using supplemental modules, protein delivered is best determined by the concentration of protein contained in enteral formula (EF) ordered. This fact provides an opportunity to explore the potential clinical effects of protein delivery and lower carbohydrate intake on clinical outcomes compared with conventional enteral formulas.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes according to the amount of protein delivered in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units at Geisinger Health System.

RESULTS

2000 encounters (1899 patients) in patients on enteral nutrition were divided into three groups receiving EF with either ≤20% protein (standard formula - SF), 21-25% protein (high protein - HP) or > 25% protein (VHP). Protein intake increased up to day 7 (p < 0.0001). Patients on VHP received more protein than other groups (p < 0.0001). Multivariable regression analysis showed no evidence of harm. In fact, we observed increased mortality with SF and HP formulas at 30-days post-discharge when compared to patients on VHP even when the effects of other variables (including age, BMI, sex, primary diagnosis, diabetes, history of dialysis, ICU days kept NPO) were taken into consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing protein intake while reducing carbohydrate intake appears to be safe. Further research aimed at defining a causative effect of increasing protein delivery while reducing carbohydrate load on outcomes is warranted.

Optimizing Inpatient Nutrition Care of Adult Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the 21st Century

Malnutrition is highly prevalent in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients and disproportionately affects those admitted to hospital. Malnutrition is a risk factor for many complications in IBD, including prolonged hospitalization, infection, greater need for surgery, development of venous thromboembolism, post-operative complications, and mortality. Early screening for malnutrition and prompt nutrition intervention if indicated has been shown to prevent or mitigate many of these outlined risk factors. There are many causes of malnutrition in IBD including reduced oral food intake, medications, active inflammation, and prior surgical resections. Hospitalization can further compound pre-existing malnutrition through inappropriate diet restrictions, nil per os (NPO) for endoscopy and imaging, or partial bowel obstruction, resulting in "post-hospital syndrome" after discharge and readmission. The aim of this article is to inform clinicians of the prevalence and consequences of malnutrition in IBD, as well as available screening and assessment tools for diagnosis, and to offer an organized approach to the nutritional care of hospitalized adult IBD patients.

How Much and What Type of Protein Should a Critically Ill Patient Receive?

Protein loss, manifested as loss of muscle mass, is observed universally in all critically ill patients. Depletion of muscle mass is associated with impaired function and poor outcomes. In extreme cases, protein malnutrition is manifested by respiratory failure, lack of wound healing, and immune dysfunction. Protecting muscle loss focused initially on meeting energy requirements. The assumption was that protein was being used (through oxidation) as an energy source. In healthy individuals, small amounts of glucose (approximately 400 calories) protect muscle loss and decrease amino acid oxidation (protein-sparing effect of glucose). Despite expectations of the benefits, the high provision of energy (above basal energy requirements) through the delivery of nonprotein calories has failed to demonstrate a clear benefit at curtailing protein loss. The protein-sparing effect of glucose is not clearly observed during illness. Increasing protein delivery beyond the normal nutrition requirements (0.8 g/k/d) has been investigated as an alternative solution. Over a dozen observational studies in critically ill patients suggest that higher protein delivery is beneficial at protecting muscle mass and associated with improved outcomes (decrease in mortality). Not surprisingly, new Society of Critical Care Medicine/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition guidelines and expert recommendations suggest higher protein delivery (>1.2 g/kg/d) for critically ill patients. This article provides an introduction to the concepts that delineate the basic principles of modern medical nutrition therapy as it relates to the goal of achieving an optimal management of protein metabolism during critical care illness, highlighting successes achieved so far but also placing significant challenges limiting our success in perspective.

Hospital Malnutrition Related to Fasting and Underfeeding: Is It an Ethical Issue?

Hospital malnutrition is a relevant clinical issue present in about 50% of patients that is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost of care. Because of the relation of malnutrition with chronic and acute inflammatory processes secondary to disease, nutrition therapy is considered an important medical treatment. However, there is little discussion about the impact of another critical issue related to hospital malnutrition, that is, lack of appropriate food or nutrition therapy given to the patients. Unnecessary fasting practices and the use of inappropriate nutrition prescriptions result in underfeeding that can be a related or direct cause of hospital malnutrition, independent of disease or inflammatory state. Suboptimal prescription of oral, enteral, and parenteral nutrition should be analyzed and discussed from an ethical perspective since this practice has the potential to harm patients. In addition, absence or inadequate provision of nutrition may present barriers for improved patient outcomes and could be prevented by simply recognizing lack of knowledge, skills, or experience in nutrition and entrusting nutrition prescription to interdisciplinary teams with clinicians well prepared in nutrition sciences. This article reviews potential barriers to the prevention or treatment of hospital malnutrition and proposes specific actions that can help clinicians to overcome and implement optimal nutrition not just as medical therapy but also as a basic comfort care that may help patients nutritionally, clinically, physically, and emotionally.