High lipid parenteral nutrition improves portasystemic encephalopathy

Nutrition and Nutritional Support in Critically Ill Patients

The use of intravenous nutritional support has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. Although it is not without controversy, administration of nutritional support is common practice in hospitalized patients including critically ill patients. Malnutrition continues to be reported in a significant number of hospitalized patients. The incidence of malnutrition in critically ill patients may be even higher than that reported in hospitalized patients overall. The consequences of malnutrition in a critically ill patient may be severe. Nutritional assessment and nutritional support can present special challenges to the intensivist. Techniques of nutritional assessment in critically ill patients are evaluated. Guidelines for the determination of the nutritional needs of these patients are outlined. Methods of delivery of nutritional support in critically ill patients are reviewed. Complications of nutritional support are discussed.

Nutritional support for liver disease

BACKGROUND

Weight loss and muscle wasting are commonly found in patients with end-stage liver disease. Since there is an association between malnutrition and poor clinical outcome, such patients (or those at risk of becoming malnourished) are often given parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements. These interventions have costs and adverse effects, so it is important to prove that their use results in improved morbidity or mortality, or both.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, and oral nutritional supplements on the mortality and morbidity of patients with underlying liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following computerised databases were searched: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (January 2012). In addition, reference lists of identified trials and review articles and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Trials identified in a previous systematic handsearch of Index Medicus were also considered. Handsearches of a number of medical journals, including abstracts from annual meetings, were done. Experts in the field and manufacturers of nutrient formulations were contacted for potential references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (parallel or cross-over design) comparing groups of patients with any underlying liver disease who received, or did not receive, enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements were identified without restriction on date, language, or publication status. Six categories of trials were separately considered: medical or surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or supplements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The following data were sought in each report: date of publication; geographical location; inclusion and exclusion criteria; the type of nutritional support and constitution of the nutrient formulation; duration of treatment; any nutrition provided to the controls; other interventions provided to the patients; number, sex, age of the study participants; hospital or outpatient status; underlying liver disease; risks of bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome reporting, intention-to-treat analysis, selective outcome reporting, others (vested interests, baseline imbalance, early stopping)); mortality; hepatic morbidity (development or resolution of ascites or hepatic encephalopathy, occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding); quality of life scores; adverse events; infections; lengths of stay in the hospital or intensive care unit; costs; serum bilirubin; postoperative complications (surgical trials only); and nutritional outcomes (nitrogen balance, anthropometric measurements, body weight). The primary outcomes of this review were mortality, hepatic morbidity, quality of life, and adverse events. Data were extracted in duplicate; differences were resolved by consensus.Data for each outcome were combined in a meta-analysis (RevMan 5.1). Estimates were reported using risk ratios or mean differences, along with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Both fixed-effect and random-effects models were employed; fixed-effect models were reported unless one model, but not the other, found a significant difference (in which case both were reported). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic. Subgroup analyses were planned to assess specific liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma), acute or chronic liver diseases, and trials employing standard or branched-chain amino acid formulations (for the hepatic encephalopathy outcomes). Sensitivity analyses were planned to compare trials at low and high risk of bias and trials reported as full papers. The following exploratory analyses were undertaken: 1) medical and surgical trials were combined for each nutritional intervention; 2) intention-to-treat analyses in which missing dichotomous data were imputed as best- and worst-case scenarios; 3) all trials were combined to assess mortality; 4) effects were estimated by absolute risk reductions.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials were identified; only one was at low risk of bias. Most of the analyses failed to find any significant differences. The significant findings that were found were the following: 1) icteric medical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced serum bilirubin (mean difference (MD) -2.86 mg%, 95% CI -3.82 mg% to -1.89 mg%, 3 trials) and better nitrogen balance (MD 3.60 g/day, 95% CI 0.86 g/day to 6.34 g/day, 1 trial); 2) surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced incidence of postoperative ascites only in the fixed-effect model (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.87, 2 trials, I(2) = 70%) and one trial demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications, especially infections (pneumonia in particular); 3) enteral nutrition may have improved nitrogen balance in medical patients (although a combination of the three trials was not possible); 4) one surgical trial of enteral nutrition found a reduction in postoperative complications; and 5) oral nutritional supplements had several effects in medical patients (reduced occurrence of ascites (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88, 3 trials), possibly (significant differences only seen in the fixed-effect model) reduced rates of infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99, 3 trials, I(2) = 14%), and improved resolution of hepatic encephalopathy (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.15 to 12.18, 2 trials, I(2) = 79%). While there was no overall effect of the supplements on mortality in medical patients, the one low risk of bias trial found an increased risk of death in the recipients of the supplements. Three trials of supplements in surgical patients failed to show any significant differences. No new information was derived from the various subgroup or sensitivity analyses. The exploratory analyses were also unrevealing except for a logical conundrum. There was no difference in mortality when all of the trials were combined, but the trials of parenteral nutrition found that those recipients had better survival (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, 10 trials). Either the former observation represents a type II error or the latter one a type I error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data do not compellingly justify the routine use of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements in patients with liver disease. The fact that all but one of these trials were at high risks of bias even casts doubt on the few benefits that were demonstrated. Data from well-designed and executed randomised trials that include an untreated control group are needed before any such recommendation can be made. Future trials have to be powered adequately to see small, but clinically important, differences.

Nutritional support for liver disease

BACKGROUND

Weight loss and muscle wasting are commonly found in patients with end-stage liver disease. Since there is an association between malnutrition and poor clinical outcome, such patients (or those at risk of becoming malnourished) are often given parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements. These interventions have costs and adverse effects, so it is important to prove that their use results in improved morbidity or mortality, or both.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, and oral nutritional supplements on the mortality and morbidity of patients with underlying liver disease.

SEARCH METHODS

The following computerised databases were searched: the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded (January 2012). In addition, reference lists of identified trials and review articles and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched. Trials identified in a previous systematic handsearch of Index Medicus were also considered. Handsearches of a number of medical journals, including abstracts from annual meetings, were done. Experts in the field and manufacturers of nutrient formulations were contacted for potential references.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials (parallel or cross-over design) comparing groups of patients with any underlying liver disease who received, or did not receive, enteral or parenteral nutrition or oral nutritional supplements were identified without restriction on date, language, or publication status. Six categories of trials were separately considered: medical or surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or supplements.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The following data were sought in each report: date of publication; geographical location; inclusion and exclusion criteria; the type of nutritional support and constitution of the nutrient formulation; duration of treatment; any nutrition provided to the controls; other interventions provided to the patients; number, sex, age of the study participants; hospital or outpatient status; underlying liver disease; risks of bias (sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome reporting, intention-to-treat analysis, selective outcome reporting, others (vested interests, baseline imbalance, early stopping)); mortality; hepatic morbidity (development or resolution of ascites or hepatic encephalopathy, occurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding); quality of life scores; adverse events; infections; lengths of stay in the hospital or intensive care unit; costs; serum bilirubin; postoperative complications (surgical trials only); and nutritional outcomes (nitrogen balance, anthropometric measurements, body weight). The primary outcomes of this review were mortality, hepatic morbidity, quality of life, and adverse events. Data were extracted in duplicate; differences were resolved by consensus.Data for each outcome were combined in a meta-analysis (RevMan 5.1). Estimates were reported using risk ratios or mean differences, along with the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Both fixed-effect and random-effects models were employed; fixed-effect models were reported unless one model, but not the other, found a significant difference (in which case both were reported). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Chi(2) test and I(2) statistic. Subgroup analyses were planned to assess specific liver diseases (alcoholic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma), acute or chronic liver diseases, and trials employing standard or branched-chain amino acid formulations (for the hepatic encephalopathy outcomes). Sensitivity analyses were planned to compare trials at low and high risk of bias and trials reported as full papers. The following exploratory analyses were undertaken: 1) medical and surgical trials were combined for each nutritional intervention; 2) intention-to-treat analyses in which missing dichotomous data were imputed as best- and worst-case scenarios; 3) all trials were combined to assess mortality; 4) effects were estimated by absolute risk reductions.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials were identified; only one was at low risk of bias. Most of the analyses failed to find any significant differences. The significant findings that were found were the following: 1) icteric medical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced serum bilirubin (mean difference (MD) -2.86 mg%, 95% CI -3.82 mg% to -1.89 mg%, 3 trials) and better nitrogen balance (MD 3.60 g/day, 95% CI 0.86 g/day to 6.34 g/day, 1 trial); 2) surgical patients receiving parenteral nutrition had a reduced incidence of postoperative ascites only in the fixed-effect model (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.87, 2 trials, I(2) = 70%) and one trial demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications, especially infections (pneumonia in particular); 3) enteral nutrition may have improved nitrogen balance in medical patients (although a combination of the three trials was not possible); 4) one surgical trial of enteral nutrition found a reduction in postoperative complications; and 5) oral nutritional supplements had several effects in medical patients (reduced occurrence of ascites (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.88, 3 trials), possibly (significant differences only seen in the fixed-effect model) reduced rates of infection (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.99, 3 trials, I(2) = 14%), and improved resolution of hepatic encephalopathy (RR 3.75, 95% CI 1.15 to 12.18, 2 trials, I(2) = 79%). While there was no overall effect of the supplements on mortality in medical patients, the one low risk of bias trial found an increased risk of death in the recipients of the supplements. Three trials of supplements in surgical patients failed to show any significant differences. No new information was derived from the various subgroup or sensitivity analyses. The exploratory analyses were also unrevealing except for a logical conundrum. There was no difference in mortality when all of the trials were combined, but the trials of parenteral nutrition found that those recipients had better survival (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.98, 10 trials). Either the former observation represents a type II error or the latter one a type I error.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data do not compellingly justify the routine use of parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, or oral nutritional supplements in patients with liver disease. The fact that all but one of these trials were at high risks of bias even casts doubt on the few benefits that were demonstrated. Data from well-designed and executed randomised trials that include an untreated control group are needed before any such recommendation can be made. Future trials have to be powered adequately to see small, but clinically important, differences.

Nutritional support in hepatic encephalopathy

Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) is a syndrome of global cerebral dysfunction resulting from underlying liver disease or portal-systemic shunting. HE can present as one of four syndromes, depending on the rapidity of onset of hepatic failure and the presence or absence of preexisting liver disease. The precise pathogenesis is unknown but likely involves impaired hepatic detoxification of ammonia as well as alterations in brain transport and metabolism of amino acids and amines. The etiology of malnutrition in hepatic failure is multifactorial. Nutritional deficits may be clinically manifest as marasmus or kwashiorkor, or both. Nutritional support in HE is directed toward reducing morbidity related to underlying malnutrition and concurrent disease. However, reaching nutritional goals is often complicated by protein and carbohydrate intolerance. The use of protein restriction in HE is controversial. Modified formulas that are supplemented in branched chain amino acids may be of value in patients who exhibit protein intolerance with standard feeding solutions or in patients who present with advanced degrees of encephalopathy.

Cholestasis and end-stage liver disease

Protein-energy malnutrition is an inevitable consequence of chronic liver disease, particularly in the developing infant. Severe malnutrition with loss of fat stores and muscle wasting affects between 60% and 80% of infants with liver disease (Beath, 1993a; Holt et al, 1997). Reduced energy intake secondary to anorexia, vomiting and fat malabsorption, in association with a disordered metabolism of carbohydrate and protein, increased energy requirements and vitamin and mineral deficiencies, contributes towards growth failure. Reversal of malnutrition is one of the key aims of liver transplantation and is achieved in the majority of long-term survivors. The aetiology of persistent growth failure post-transplantation is multifactorial and is related to pre-operative malnutrition, glucocorticoid administration, feeding problems and post-operative complications. Strategies to prevent pre- and post-transplant growth failure include early referral for liver transplantation and a multidisciplinary approach to nutritional support, which may increase survival and improve the quality of life and outcome of liver transplantation.

The metabolic distinctiveness of emulsified lipid particles in the bloodstream and its clinical implications

The advantages of administering intravenous fat emulsions are well known. Primarily, they are important sources of essential fatty acids; they allow the administration of many calories within a small volume; and they are isotonic compared to body fluid. In this review, the metabolic distinctiveness of parenterally infused fat particles in the bloodstream is evaluated under four main headings: (1) the structure and metabolism of fat emulsion particles; (2) the metabolism of phospholipid-rich fat emulsion; (3) the interactions between fat emulsion particles and plasma lipoproteins; and (4) the acquisition of protein moieties (apolipoproteins) by fat emulsion particles and its clinical implications.

Nutrition and growth in patients with chronic liver disease

Protein energy malnutrition leading to growth failure is an inevitable consequence of chronic liver disease in childhood. Although the precise pathophysiology is not understood considerable progress has been made in understanding the mechanisms of fat malabsorption and protein turnover in liver disease. There are many difficulties with the correct assessment of nutritional parameters in children with liver disease related to their abnormal body composition and energy expenditure and care needs to be taken with the interpretation of results. The effects of malnutrition secondary to chronic liver disease are varied and include fat soluble vitamin deficiencies, generalised growth failure, impairment of gastrointestinal function, immunosuppression and hypotonia. It is now recognised that malnutrition is an important risk factor for liver transplantation and increases both mortality and morbidity. Strategies to prevent or reverse malnutrition are now established and include the use of specific infant formulas based on low salt protein and an increased concentration of medium train triglyceride (50-70%). Careful nutritional support in association with generous fat soluble vitamin supplementation may produce dramatic improvement in catch up weight gain but for those children in whom growth failure persists, the only management is liver transplantation.

Accelerated improvement of alcoholic liver disease with enteral nutrition

This prospective study compared the effects of tube-fed nutrition with those of a regular diet in alcoholic liver disease. The high prevalence of malnutrition in patients with alcoholic liver disease requires clarification of the benefits of aggressive nutritional support. Patients were randomly assigned a regular diet without or with tube-fed supplementation, delivering 1.5 g/kg protein and 167 kJ/kg daily. Comparisons of encephalopathy, antipyrine clearance, metabolic rate, and biochemical parameters were performed weekly for 4 weeks. Sixteen patients receiving enteral supplementation had antipyrine half-life (50% vs. 3% reduction), serum bilirubin (25% vs. 0% reduction), and median encephalopathy scores that improved more rapidly than those of controls. Initially, 15 controls did not consume adequate calories to meet measured resting energy expenditure. Aggressive nutritional intervention accelerated improvement in alcoholic liver disease. Adverse effects did not offset the demonstrated benefits of a 2-cal/mL, casein-based tube-fed supplement. These findings support the use of standard, casein-based solutions in the treatment of alcoholic liver disease and as the control condition for future studies.

Nutrition and alcoholic liver disease

While the rate of malnutrition is relatively modest in alcoholic patients without alcoholic liver disease, the rate of malnutrition is virtually 100% in patients with alcoholic hepatitis and/or alcoholic cirrhosis. The reasons for malnutrition in the alcoholic hepatitis patient include various factors such as anorexia, poor diet, malabsorption, and altered metabolic state. When the patient is hospitalized, the malnutrition frequently worsens because of fasting for tests, continued anorexia, and complications such as gastrointestinal bleeding. Patients with severe acute hepatitis appear to be both hypermetabolic and hypercatabolic, whereas data are much more conflicting concerning patients with more stable liver disease. Most studies suggest that patients with alcoholic liver disease require at least 60 g of protein per day to maintain positive nitrogen balance. Consistent alterations in plasma amino acid profiles occur in alcoholic liver disease, and specialized nutritional formulations have been devised to correct this amino acid profile with the intent of improving overall nutritional status, hepatic encephalopathy, and mortality. The effects of nutritional support (including use of specialized products) on outcome, on acute hepatic encephalopathy, and on chronic or latent portal systemic encephalopathy are reviewed.

Nutritional support in the critical care setting (Part 1)

Over the past two decades nutritional support has rapidly become an integral part of the medical care of critically ill patients. As scientific evidence accumulates supporting the important role of underlying nutritional status in determining the eventual outcome of many illnesses, aggressive nutritional intervention has become commonplace in our medical and surgical ICUs. However, nutritional support, particularly parenteral alimentation, is expensive and associated with important morbidity and even mortality. Furthermore, definite evidence of its clinical efficacy under certain specific conditions is often lacking and in need of properly done prospective studies. This review summarizes the basic principles of nutrition as applied to the critically ill patient in the clinical setting. Special emphasis is on practical considerations regarding cost, efficacy (or lack thereof), and potential advantages, disadvantages, and risk of complications of each proposed approach.