When more is better

When and how should sepsis patients be fed?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview on the recent literature regarding metabolism during sepsis and outcome-related effects of nutrition therapy in septic patients. The question when and how these patients should be fed with respect to macronutrient intake is elaborated.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the incidence of severe sepsis has steadily increased over the past years, still no strong evidence is available with respect to the role of energy and protein provision in these patients. On the basis of recent large randomized trials in mixed patient populations, the updated sepsis guidelines recommend early but limited nutrition via the enteral route rather than targeted feeding. Lately, the results of a large trial challenged the importance of the route of feeding on the clinical outcome of critically ill patients. Four post-hoc analyses of prospective randomized trials including a large number of severely septic patients yielded conflicting results. One reported significant mortality reduction with near-target calorie and protein intake by exclusive enteral nutrition, whereas the second showed an advantage of enteral compared to combined nutrition, albeit resulting in a lower calorie and protein provision. The other two analyses found no association at all of either lower or higher daily caloric or protein intake, respectively, with clinical outcomes.

SUMMARY

In the absence of strong clinical evidence, pathophysiological findings are discussed and nutritional strategies for septic patients derived. Future studies should explore the individual response to specific exogenous supply of macronutrients and micronutrients in the acute and persistent phase of severe systemic inflammation.

Gastric residual volume in critically ill patients: a dead marker or still alive?

Early enteral nutrition (EN) is consistently recommended as first-line nutrition therapy in critically ill patients since it favorably alters outcome, providing both nutrition and nonnutrition benefits. However, critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation are at risk for regurgitation, pulmonary aspiration, and eventually ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). EN may increase these risks when gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is present. Gastric residual volume (GRV) is considered a surrogate parameter of GI dysfunction during the progression of enteral feeding in the early phase of critical illness and beyond. By monitoring GRV, clinicians may detect patients with delayed gastric emptying earlier and intervene with strategies that minimize or prevent VAP as one of the major risks of EN. The value of periodic GRV measurements with regard to risk reduction of VAP incidence has frequently been questioned in the past years. Increasing the GRV threshold before interrupting gastric feeding results in marginal increases in EN delivery. More recently, a large randomized clinical trial revealed that abandoning GRV monitoring did not negatively affect clinical outcomes (including VAP) in mechanically ventilated patients. The results have revived the discussion on the role of GRV monitoring in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients receiving early EN. This review summarizes the most recent clinical evidence on the use of GRV monitoring in critically ill patients. Based on the clinical evidence, it discusses the pros and cons and further addresses whether GRV is a dead marker or still alive for the nutrition management of critically ill patients.

Body cell mass evaluation in critically ill patients: killing two birds with one stone

Body cell mass (BCM) is the metabolically active cell mass involved in O₂ consumption, CO₂ production and energy expenditure. BCM measurement has been suggested as a tool for the evaluation of nutritional status. Since BCM is closely related to energy expenditure, it could also represent a good reference value for the calculation of nutrient needs. In a recent issue of Critical Care, Ismael and colleagues used bioelectrical impedance analysis parameters and anthropometric variables to evaluate BCM in patients with acute kidney injury, before and after a hemodialysis session. The results of this study suggest that BCM is relatively insensitive to major body fluid shifts, a well known factor interfering with nutritional evaluation/monitoring and energy need calculations in the ICU. Thus, BCM seems to be a more 'stable' nutritional variable, as it is apparently less influenced by non-nutritional factors. The results of this paper emphasize the need to identify biologically sound parameters for nutritional status evaluation and energy need calculation in critically ill patients; in this regard, BCM could fulfill these expectations.