Parenteral nutrition: never say never

Effect of the Timing of Nutritional Support Team Intervention on Nutritional Status on Patients Receiving Enteral Nutrition

Many hospitalized patients usually have a high risk of malnutrition, which delays the therapy process and can lead to severe complications. Despite of the potential benefits, the effects of timely intervention by nutrition support team (NST) on the nutritional status of admitted patients are not well established. This study aimed to compare the nutritional status between patients with early and delayed NST supports and to assess the effect of the timing of NST support initiation on the nutritional status of enteral nutrition patients. In a simple comparison between the two groups, the early NST intervention group had shorter hospital stays and fewer tube feeding periods than the delayed NST intervention group. The increase in the amount of energy intake from first to last NST intervention was 182.3 kcal in patients in the early NST intervention group, higher than that in patients in the delayed intervention group (p = 0.042). The extent of reduction in serum albumin and hemoglobin levels between the initial and last NST intervention tended to be lower in the early NST intervention group than in the delayed NST intervention group. The mean odds ratio for the patients who were severely malnourished in the early NST intervention group was 0.142 (95% confidence interval, 0.045–0.450) after adjusting for hospital stay and age. The results of this study indicate that early NST intervention can improve patients' overall nutritional status.

Omega-3 fatty acid-containing parenteral nutrition in ICU patients: systematic review with meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acid (FA)-containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with significant improvements in patient outcomes compared with standard PN regimens without ω-3 FA lipid emulsions. Here, we evaluate the impact of ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN on clinical outcomes and costs in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients using a meta-analysis and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a hospital operating in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US.

Methods

We present a pharmacoeconomic simulation based on a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes and costs comparing ω-3 FA-containing PN with standard PN were evaluated in adult ICU patients eligible to receive PN covering at least 70% of their total energy requirements and in the subgroup of critically ill ICU patients (mean ICU stay > 48 h). The meta-analysis with the co-primary outcomes of infection rate and mortality rate was based on randomized controlled trial data retrieved via a systematic literature review; resulting efficacy data were subsequently employed in country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses.

Results

In adult ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN was associated with significant reductions in the relative risk (RR) of infection (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.86; p = 0.004), hospital length of stay (HLOS) (− 3.05 days; 95% CI − 5.03, − 1.07; p = 0.003) and ICU length of stay (LOS) (− 1.89 days; 95% CI − 3.33, − 0.45; p = 0.01). In critically ill ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN was associated with similar reductions in infection rates (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46, 0.94; p = 0.02), HLOS (− 3.98 days; 95% CI − 6.90, − 1.06; p = 0.008) and ICU LOS (− 2.14 days; 95% CI − 3.89, − 0.40; p = 0.02). Overall hospital episode costs were reduced in all six countries using ω-3 FA-containing PN compared to standard PN, ranging from €-3156 ± 1404 in Spain to €-9586 ± 4157 in the US.

Conclusion

These analyses demonstrate that ω-3 FA-containing PN is associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient outcomes. Its use is also predicted to yield cost savings compared to standard PN, rendering ω-3 FA-containing PN an attractive cost-saving alternative across different health care systems.

Study registration

PROSPERO CRD42019129311.

The effect of enteral versus parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To analyze the effect of enteral nutrition compared with parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

SETTING

Intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

23 trials containing 6478 patients met our inclusion criteria.

INTERVENTION

A systematical literature search was conducted to identify eligible trials in electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was mortality, the secondary outcomes were gastrointestinal complications, bloodstream infections, organ failures, length of stay in ICU and hospital. We performed a predefined subgroup analyses to explore the treatment effect by mean age, publication date and disease types.

MAIN RESULTS

The result showed no significant effect on overall mortality rate (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.81 to 1.18, P = 0.83, I² = 19%) and organ failure rate (OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.75 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I² = 16%). The use of EN had more beneficial effects with fewer bloodstream infections when compared to PN (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.82, P = 0.001, I² = 27%) and this was more noteworthy in the subgroup analysis for critical surgical patients (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.59, P < 0.0001, I² = 0%). EN was associated with reduction in hospital LOS (MD -0.90, 95%CI -1.63 to -0.17, P = 0.21, I² = 0%) but had an increase incidence of gastrointestinal complications (OR 2.00, 95%CI 1.76 to 2.27, P < 0.00001, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

For critically ill patients, the two routes of nutrition support had no different effect on mortality rate. The use of EN could decrease the incidence of bloodstream infections and reduce hospital LOS but was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal complications.

Effect of combined parenteral and enteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition alone for critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The increased mortality rate and other poor prognosis make malnutrition a serious issue for adult critically ill patients in intensive care unit care. This study was to compare outcomes between combined parenteral and enteral nutrition and enteral nutrition alone for adult critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PubMed (June 30, 2018), EMBASE (June 30, 2018), and Cochrane library databases (June 30, 2018) were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of comparing combined PN and EN with EN alone were eligible. Relative risks (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs involving 5360 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with combined PN and EN, fewer respiratory infections (RR, 1.13 [95% CI 1.01-1.25]) and shorter length of days at hospital (MD, 1.83 [95% CI 1.05-2.62]) were observed in EN alone group. And no significant differences were found on hospital mortality (RR, 0.91 [95% CI 0.74-1.12]), length of days in ICU (MD, -0.23 [95% CI -1.79 to 1.32]), duration of ventilatory support (MD, -1.10 [95% CI -3.15 to 0.94]), albumin (MD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21]), or prealbumin (MD, -0.77 [95% CI -0.22 to 1.75]) between theses 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Receiving EN alone decreased the respiratory infections and length of days at hospital for critically ill patients. Combined PN and EN did not add up the potential risk from PN and EN on hospital mortality, length of days in ICU, duration of ventilatory support, albumin, and prealbumin.

Parenteral or enteral nutrition: do you have the choice?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The review focuses on the use of parenteral nutrition and enteral nutrition in critically ill patients to optimize the nutrition care throughout the ICU stay. The key message is: you have the choice!

RECENT FINDINGS

Enteral nutrition has been recommended for critically ill patients, whereas parenteral nutrition has been considered harmful and to be avoided. However, recent studies have challenged this theory. They demonstrated that enteral nutrition is frequently associated with energy and protein undernutrition, whereas parenteral nutrition becomes deleterious only if overfeeding is induced. Measuring energy expenditure by indirect calorimetry, in most cases, enables accurate determination of the energy needs to optimize the prescription of nutrition. Protein targets should also be considered for adequate feeding. Parenteral nutrition can be used as a supplement or as an alternative to enteral nutrition in case of gastrointestinal intolerance, to enable adequate energy, and protein provision.

SUMMARY

Parenteral nutrition is a powerful tool to optimize nutrition care of critically ill patients to improve clinical outcome, if prescribed according to the individual needs of the patients. After 3-4 days of attempt to feed enterally, enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition can be used alternatively or combined, as long as the target is reached with special attention to avoid hypercaloric feeding.

Impact and outcomes of nutritional support team intervention in patients with gastrointestinal disease in the intensive care unit

Nutritional support has become an important intervention for critically ill patients. Many studies have reported on the effects of nutritional support for the patients within the intensive care unit (ICU); however, no studies have specifically assessed patients with gastrointestinal diseases who may have difficulty absorbing enteral nutrition (EN) in the ICU.Sixty-two patients with gastrointestinal disease were admitted to the ICU between August 2014 and August 2016 at a single tertiary university hospital. We analyzed 2 different patient groups in a retrospective cohort study: those who received nutritional support team (NST) intervention and those who did not.Forty-four (71.0%) patients received nutritional support in ICU and 18 (29.0%) did not. Variables including male sex, high albumin or prealbumin level at the time of ICU admission, and short transition period into EN showed statistically significant association with lower mortality on the univariate analysis (all P < .05). Multivariate analysis revealed that longer length of hospital stay (P = .013; hazard ratio [HR], 0.972; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.951-0.994), shorter transition into EN (P = .014; HR, 1.040; 95% CI, 1.008-1.072), higher prealbumin level (P = .049; HR, 0.988; 95% CI, 0.976-1.000), and NST intervention (P = .022; HR, 0.356; 95% CI, 0.147-0.862) were independent prognostic factors for lower mortality.In conclusion, NST intervention related to early initiated EN, and high prealbumin levels are beneficial to decrease mortality in the acutely ill patients with GI disease.

Clinical effects of supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients

AIM

To investigate the clinical value of supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) in critically ill patients.

METHODS

The clinical data of 108 critically ill patients hospitalized at our hospital from June 2014 to June 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the method of nutrition used, the patients were divided into an enteral nutrition (EN) group (control group) and an EN combined with SPN group (observation group). The clinical effects were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

After 1 wk of SPN, serum albumin, prealbumin and hemoglobin were significantly higher in the observation group than in the control group (P < 0.05). The upper arm circumference between the two groups had no significant differences (P > 0.05). The incidence of infection and hospitalization time in the observation group were significantly lower than those of the control group (P < 0.05). The mortality of two groups was not statistically different (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SPN can effectively improve the nutritional status of critically ill patients, reduce the incidence of infection, and shorten the length of hospital stay.

Effectiveness of enteral feeding protocol on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a study protocol for before-and-after design

INTRODUCTION

Enteral feed is an important component of nutritional therapy in critically ill patients and underfeeding has been associated with adverse outcomes. The article developed an enteral feeding protocol and planed a before-and-after comparative trial to explore whether implementation of enteral feeding protocol was able to improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be conducted in intensive care units (ICUs) of ten tertiary care academic centers. Critically ill patients expected to stay in ICU for over 3 days and require enteral nutrition (EN) were potentially eligible. This is a before-and-after study comprising three phases: The first phase is the period without enteral feeding protocol; the second phase involves four-week training program, and the last phase is to perform the protocol in participating centers. We plan to enroll a total of 350 patients to provide an 80% power and 0.05 error rate to detect a 15% reduction of mortality. The primary outcome is 28-day mortality.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval to conduct the research has been obtained from all participating centers. Additionally, the results will be published in peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy Number (ISRCTN) registry (ISRCTN10583582).

Indirect calorimetry in nutritional therapy. A position paper by the ICALIC study group

BACKGROUND & AIMS

This review aims to clarify the use of indirect calorimetry (IC) in nutritional therapy for critically ill and other patient populations. It features a comprehensive overview of the technical concepts, the practical application and current developments of IC.

METHODS

Pubmed-referenced publications were analyzed to generate an overview about the basic knowledge of IC, to describe advantages and disadvantages of the current technology, to clarify technical issues and provide pragmatic solutions for clinical practice and metabolic research. The International Multicentric Study Group for Indirect Calorimetry (ICALIC) has generated this position paper.

RESULTS

IC can be performed in in- and out-patients, including those in the intensive care unit, to measure energy expenditure (EE). Optimal nutritional therapy, defined as energy prescription based on measured EE by IC has been associated with better clinical outcome. Equations based on simple anthropometric measurements to predict EE are inaccurate when applied to individual patients. An ongoing international academic initiative to develop a new indirect calorimeter aims at providing innovative and affordable technical solutions for many of the current limitations of IC.

CONCLUSION

Indirect calorimetry is a tool of paramount importance, necessary to optimize the nutrition therapy of patients with various pathologies and conditions. Recent technical developments allow broader use of IC for in- and out-patients.