Effect of Supplemental Parenteral Nutrition Versus Enteral Nutrition Alone on Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
ABSTRACT: Enteral nutrition (EN) is considered the first feeding route for critically ill patients. However, adverse effects such as gastrointestinal complications limit its optimal provision, leading to inadequate energy and protein intake. We compared the clinical outcomes of supplemental parenteral nutrition added to EN (SPN + EN) and EN alone in critically ill adults. Electronic databases restricted to full-text randomized controlled trials available in the English language and published from January 1990 to January 2019 were searched. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and the meta-analysis was conducted using the MedCalc software. A total of five studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to EN alone, SPN + EN decreased the risk of nosocomial infections (relative risk (RR) = 0.733, p = 0.032) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR = 0.569, p = 0.030). No significant differences were observed between SPN + EN and EN in the length of hospital stay, hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. In conclusion, when enteral feeding fails to fulfill the energy requirements in critically ill adult patients, SPN may be beneficial as it helps in decreasing nosocomial infections and ICU mortality, in addition to increasing energy and protein intakes with no negative effects on other clinical outcomes.
Project description:Nutrition guidelines recommendations differ on the use of parenteral nutrition (PN), and existing clinical trial data are inconclusive. Our recent observational data show that amounts of energy/protein received early in the intensive care unit (ICU) affect patient mortality, particularly for inadequate nutrition intake in patients with body mass indices (BMIs) of <25 or >35. Thus, we hypothesized increased nutrition delivery via supplemental PN (SPN)?+?enteral nutrition (EN) to underweight and obese ICU patients would improve 60-day survival and quality of life (QoL) versus usual care (EN alone).In this multicenter, randomized, controlled pilot trial completed in 11 centers across four countries, adult ICU patients with acute respiratory failure expected to require mechanical ventilation for >72 hours and with a BMI of <25 or ?35 were randomized to receive EN alone or SPN?+?EN to reach 100% of their prescribed nutrition goal for 7 days after randomization. The primary aim of this pilot trial was to achieve a 30% improvement in nutrition delivery.In total, 125 patients were enrolled. Over the first 7 post-randomization ICU days, patients in the SPN?+?EN arm had a 26% increase in delivered calories and protein, whereas patients in the EN-alone arm had a 22% increase (both p?<?0.001). Surgical ICU patients received poorer EN nutrition delivery and had a significantly greater increase in calorie and protein delivery when receiving SPN versus medical ICU patients. SPN proved feasible to deliver with our prescribed protocol. In this pilot trial, no significant outcome differences were observed between groups, including no difference in infection risk. Potential, although statistically insignificant, trends of reduced hospital mortality and improved discharge functional outcomes and QoL outcomes in the SPN?+?EN group versus the EN-alone group were observed.Provision of SPN?+?EN significantly increased calorie/protein delivery over the first week of ICU residence versus EN alone. This was achieved with no increased infection risk. Given feasibility and consistent encouraging trends in hospital mortality, QoL, and functional endpoints, a full-scale trial of SPN powered to assess these clinical outcome endpoints in high-nutritional-risk ICU patients is indicated-potentially focusing on the more poorly EN-fed surgical ICU setting.NCT01206166.
Project description:Enteral nutrition (EN) feeding protocol was proposed to have positive impact on critically ill patients. However, current studies showed conflicting results. The present study aimed to investigate whether enteral feeding protocol was able to improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.A before (stage 1) and after (stage 2) interventional study was performed in 10 tertiary care hospitals. All patients expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) for over three days were potentially eligible. Clinical outcomes such as 28-day mortality, ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), and nosocomial infection were compared between the two stages.A total of 410 patients were enrolled during the study period, including 236 in stage 1 and 174 in stage 2. EN feeding protocol was able to increase the proportion of EN in day 2 (41.8±22.3 vs. 50.0±28.3%; p = 0.006) and day 6 (70.3±25.2 vs. 77.6±25.8%; p = 0.006). EN percentages tended to be higher in stage 1 than that in stage 2 on other days, but statistical significance was not reached. There was no difference in 28-day mortality between stage 1 and 2 (0.14 vs. 0.14; p = 0.984). Implementation of EN feeding protocol marginally reduced ICU length of stay (19.44±18.48 vs. 16.29±16.19 days; p = 0.077). There was no difference in the duration of MV between stage a and stage 2 (14.24±14.49 vs. 14.51±17.55 days; p = 0.877).The study found that the EN feeding protocol was able to increase the proportion of EN feeding, but failed to reduce 28-day mortality, incidence of nosocomial infection or duration of MV.
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Current international sepsis guidelines recommend low-dose enteral nutrition (EN) for the first week. This contradicts other nutrition guidelines for heterogenous groups of ICU patients. Data on the optimal dose of EN in septic patients are lacking. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of energy and protein amount given by EN on clinical outcomes in a large cohort of critically ill septic patients. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of pooled data collected prospectively from international nutrition studies. Eligible patients had a diagnosis of sepsis and/or pneumonia and were admitted to the ICU for ?3 days, mechanically ventilated within 48 hours of ICU admission and only receiving EN. Patients receiving parenteral nutrition were excluded. Data were collected from ICU admission up to a maximum of 12 days. Regression models were used to examine the impact of calorie and protein intake on 60-day mortality and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Of the 13,630 patients included in the dataset, 2,270 met the study inclusion criteria. Patients received a mean amount of 1,057 kcal/d (14.5 kcal/kg/day) and 49 g protein/day (0.7 g/kg/d) by EN alone. Patients were mechanically ventilated for a median of 8.4 days and 60-day mortality was 30.5%. An increase of 1,000 kcal was associated with reduced 60-day mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.77, P <0.001) and more ventilator-free days (2.81 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 5.08, P?=?0.02) as was an increase of 30 g protein per day (OR 0.76; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.87, P <0.001 and 1.92 days, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.27, P?=?0.005, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill septic patients, a calorie and protein delivery closer to recommended amounts by EN in the early phase of ICU stay was associated with a more favorable outcome.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Malnutrition in critically ill adults in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with a significantly elevated risk of mortality. Adequate nutrition therapy is crucial to optimise outcomes. Currently, there is a paucity of such data in Latin America. Our aims were to characterise current clinical nutrition practices in the ICU setting in Latin America and evaluate whether current practices meet caloric and protein requirements in critically ill patients receiving nutrition therapy. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional, retrospective, observational study in eight Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, and Peru). Eligible patients were critically ill adults hospitalised in the ICU and receiving enteral nutrition (EN) and/or parenteral nutrition (PN) on the Screening Day and the previous day (day -1). Caloric and protein balance on day -1, nutritional status, and prescribed nutrition therapy were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of reaching daily caloric and protein targets. RESULTS:The analysis included 1053 patients from 116 hospitals. Evaluation of nutritional status showed that 74.1% of patients had suspected/moderate or severe malnutrition according to the Subjective Global Assessment. Prescribed nutrition therapy included EN alone (79.9%), PN alone (9.4%), and EN?+?PN (10.7%). Caloric intake met >90% of the daily target in 59.7% of patients on day -1; a caloric deficit was present in 40.3%, with a mean (±SD) daily caloric deficit of -688.8?±?455.2 kcal. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that combined administration of EN?+?PN was associated with a statistically significant increase in the probability of meeting >90% of daily caloric and protein targets compared with EN alone (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.39; p?=?0.038). CONCLUSIONS:In the ICU setting in Latin America, malnutrition was highly prevalent and caloric intake failed to meet targeted energy delivery in 40% of critically ill adults receiving nutrition therapy. Supplemental administration of PN was associated with improved energy and protein delivery; however, PN use was low. Collectively, these findings suggest an opportunity for more effective utilisation of supplemental PN in critically ill adults who fail to receive adequate nutrition from EN alone.
Project description:Small bowel enteral nutrition (SBEN) may improve nutrient delivery to critically ill patients intolerant of gastric enteral nutrition. However, the optimal time and target for evaluating SBEN efficacy are unknown. This retrospective cohort study investigates these parameters in 55 critically ill patients at high nutrition risk (modified NUTRIC score ≥ 5). Daily actual energy intake was recorded from 3 days before SBEN initiation until 7 days thereafter. The energy achievement rate (%) was calculated as follows: (actual energy intake/estimated energy requirement) × 100. The optimal time was determined from the day on which energy achievement rate reached >60% post-SBEN. Assessment results were as follows: median APACHE II score, 27; SOFA score, 10.0; modified NUTRIC score, 7; and median time point of SBEN initiation, ICU day 8. The feeding volume, energy and protein intake, and achievement rate (%) of energy and protein intake increased significantly after SBEN (p < 0.001). An energy achievement rate less than 65% 3 days after SBEN was significantly associated with increased mortality after adjusting for confounding factors (odds ratio, 4.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.44⁻17.07). SBEN improves energy delivery in critically ill patients who are still at high nutrition risk after 1 week of stomach enteral nutrition.
Project description:BACKGROUND:In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48-72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. METHODS:This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. RESULTS:There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m2. Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p?<?0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p?<?0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p?<?0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016).
Project description:BACKGROUND:Enteral nutrition (EN) is a ubiquitous intervention in ICU patients but there is uncertainty regarding the optimal dose, timing and importance for patient-centered outcomes during critical illness. Our research group has previously found an improved protein balance during normocaloric versus hypocaloric parenteral nutrition in neurosurgical ICU patients. We now wanted to investigate if this could be demonstrated in a general ICU population with established enteral feeding, including patients on renal replacement therapy. METHODS:Patients with EN >80% of energy target as determined by indirect calorimetry were randomized to or 50% or 100% of current EN rate. After 24 hours, whole-body protein kinetics were determined by enteral and parenteral stable isotope tracer infusions. Treatment allocation was then switched, and tracer investigations repeated 24 hours later in a crossover design with patients serving as their own controls. RESULTS:Six patients completed the full protocol. During feeding with 100% EN all patients received >1.2 g/kg/day of protein. Mean whole-body protein balance increased from -6.07 to 2.93 µmol phenylalanine/kg/h during 100% EN as compared to 50% (p = 0.044). The oxidation rate of phenylalanine was unaltered (p = 0.78). CONCLUSIONS:It is possible to assess whole-body protein turnover using a stable isotope technique in critically ill patients during enteral feeding and renal replacement therapy. Our results also suggest a better whole-body protein balance during full dose as compared to half dose EN. As the sample size was smaller than anticipated, this finding should be confirmed in larger studies.
Project description:For critically ill patients treated in intensive care units (ICU), two feeding strategies are currently being advocated, one by American/Canadian and the other by European expert guidelines. These guidelines differ particularly in the timing of initiating parenteral nutrition (PN) in patients for whom enteral nutrition (EN) does not reach caloric targets.The EPaNIC trial is an investigator-initiated, non-commercial, multi-center, randomized, controlled, clinical trial with a parallel group design. This study compares early (European guideline) versus late (American/Canadian guideline) initiation of PN when EN fails to reach a caloric target. In the early PN group, PN is initiated within 24-48 hours after ICU admission to complete early enteral nutrition (EN) up to a calculated nutritional target. In the late PN group, PN completing EN is initiated when the target is not reached on day 8. In both groups, the same early EN protocol is applied. The study is designed to compare clinical outcome (morbidity and mortality) in the 2 study arms as well as to address several mechanistical questions. We here describe the EPaNIC study protocol and the statistical analysis plan for the primary report of the clinical results.The study has been initiated as planned on august 01 2007. One interim analysis advised continuation of the trial. The study will be completed in February 2011.ClinicalTrials (NCT): NCT00512122.
Project description:Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have a high risk of developing malnutrition, and this is associated with poorer clinical outcomes. In clinical practice, nutrition, including enteral nutrition (EN), is often not prioritized. Resulting from this, risks and safety issues for patients and healthcare professionals can emerge. The aim of this literature review, inspired by the Rapid Review Guidebook by Dobbins, 2017, was to identify risks and safety issues for patient safety in the management of EN in critically ill patients in the ICU. Three databases were used to identify studies between 2009 and 2020. We assessed 3495 studies for eligibility and included 62 in our narrative synthesis. Several risks and problems were identified: No use of clinical assessment or screening nutrition assessment, inadequate tube management, missing energy target, missing a nutritionist, bad hygiene and handling, wrong time management and speed, nutritional interruptions, wrong body position, gastrointestinal complication and infections, missing or not using guidelines, understaffing, and lack of education. Raising awareness of these risks is a central aspect in patient safety in ICU. Clinical experts can use a checklist with 12 identified top risks and the recommendations drawn up to carry out their own risk analysis in clinical practice.
Project description:Background and Aims:Patients with hemodynamic instability need to receive intensive treatment as fluid replacement and vasoactive drugs. In the meantime, it is supposed to initiate nutritional therapy within 24 to 48 hours after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), as an essential part of patient's intensive care and better outcomes. However, there are many controversies tangential to the prescription of enteral nutrition (EN) concomitant to the use of vasopressor and its doses. In this way, the present study aimed to identify what the literature presents of evidence to guide the clinical practice concerning the safe dose of vasopressors for the initiation of nutritional therapy in critically ill patients. Methods:This review was carried out in PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Medline databases. The descriptors were used to perform the search strategy: Critical Care, Intensive Care Units, Vasoconstrictor Agents, and Enteral Nutrition. Inclusion criteria were patients of both genders, over 18 years of age, using vasoactive drugs, with the possibility of receiving EN therapy, and articles written in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. In addition, exclusion criteria were case reports, non-papers, and repeated papers. Results:10 articles met our inclusion criteria. Conclusion:It was observed that there are many controversies about the supply of EN in critically ill patients using vasopressor, especially about the safe dose, and it was not possible to identify a cutoff value for the beginning therapy. Despite the drug doses, clinical signs are still the most important parameters in the evaluation of EN tolerance.