Diarrhoea in critical care is rarely infective in origin, associated with increased length of stay and higher mortality

Enteral nutrition in septic shock: a call for a paradigm shift

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to identify contemporary evidence evaluating enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, outline risk factors for enteral feeding intolerance (EFI), describe the conundrum of initiating enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, appraise current EFI definitions, and identify bedside monitors for guiding enteral nutrition therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The NUTRIREA-2 and NUTRIREA-3 trial results have better informed the dose of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with circulatory shock. In both trials, patients with predominant septic shock randomized to receive early standard-dose nutrition had more gastrointestinal complications. Compared to other contemporary RCTs that included patients with circulatory shock, patients in the NUTRIREA-2 and NUTRIREA-3 trials had higher bowel ischemia rates, were sicker, and received full-dose enteral nutrition while receiving high baseline dose of vasopressor. These findings suggest severity of illness, vasopressor dose, and enteral nutrition dose impact outcomes.

SUMMARY

The provision of early enteral nutrition preserves gut barrier functions; however, these benefits are counterbalanced by potential complications of introducing luminal nutrients into a hypo-perfused gut, including bowel ischemia. Findings from the NUTRIREA2 and NUTRIREA-3 trials substantiate a 'less is more' enteral nutrition dose strategy during the early acute phase of critical illness. In the absence of bedside tools to guide the initiation and advancement of enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, the benefit of introducing enteral nutrition on preserving gut barrier function must be weighed against the risk of harm by considering dose of vasopressor, dose of enteral nutrition, and severity of illness.

The safety and efficacy of probiotic supplementation for critically ill adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The safety and efficacy of probiotics during severe illness has been a subject of ongoing interest. The impact of probiotics can worsen nutritional status, which could potentially result in a deterioration of the patient's overall life-threatening status.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of probiotics in reducing intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections in adult critically ill patients.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and Cochrane library databases for the period 2011-2020 were searched.

DATA EXTRACTION

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) methodology was used to search for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of probiotics among critically ill patients.

DATA ANALYSIS

No significant difference was observed between probiotics and control groups in terms of the mortality rate (risk ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval .82 to 1.55, P = .46). Probiotics, however, provided a significant reduction in ICU-acquired infections (risk ratio .73, 95% confidence interval .58 to .93, P = .01).

CONCLUSION

The use of probiotics seems to play a role in decreasing the incidence of ICU-acquired infections. Also, a potential reduction in terms of the incidence of diarrhea has been reported, with no examples of adverse incidents, suggesting probiotics are safe.

Probiotic prophylaxis to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in children on mechanical ventilation: A randomized double-blind clinical trial

PURPOSE

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common nosocomial infections in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). Using new strategies to prevent nosocomial infections is crucial to avoid antibiotic resistance. One of these strategies is the utilization of probiotics. This study aims to investigate the efficacy of probiotic prophylaxis in preventing VAP in mechanically ventilated children.

METHOD

This study was a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. The study included 72 children under 12 years of age under mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h in the Mofid Children's Hospital. Patients were randomly divided into Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 probiotic recipients (n = 38) and placebo groups (n = 34). In addition to the standard treatment, both groups received a sachet containing probiotics or a placebo twice a day. Children were screened for VAP based on clinical and laboratory evidence.

RESULTS

The mean age of children in the intervention and placebo groups was 4.60 ± 4.84 and 3.38 ± 3.49 years, respectively. After adjusting the other variables, it was observed that chance of VAP among probiotics compared to the placebo group was significantly decreased (OR adjusted = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.09-0.95). Also, probiotic was associated with a significantly lower chance of diarrhea than the placebo group (OR adjusted = 0.09; 95% CI: 0.01-0.96).

CONCLUSION

Probiotic utilization is effective in preventing the incidence of VAP and diarrhea in children under mechanical ventilation in the PICU.

The Seventh Organ-Gastrointestinal Tract: Neglect at Your Own Peril!

How to cite this article: Kulkarni AP, Govil D, Gupta S. The Seventh Organ—Gastrointestinal Tract: Neglect at Your Own Peril!. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 4):S143–S145.