Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN ; 48:513, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2003967

ABSTRACT

The aim of this analysis was to determine nutrition support needs and characteristics of COVID19 patients assessed by critical care dietitians during the COVID19 pandemic. Nutrition parameters were collected for all patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID19 with length of stay (LOS) >48hrs. Data was compared from March-June 2020 (T1) to January-April 2021 (T2). The patients who met the inclusion criteria (n=64 in T1 and n=77 in T2) were assessed by a critical care Dietitian: 100% required nutrition support. Mean age in T1 was 60.6yrs (66% male) compared to 63.1yrs in T2 (62% male). Mean BMI was 29.6kg/m2 vs. 30.2kg/m2. In T1 72% required mechanical ventilation vs. 78% in T2, remainder on non-invasive ventilation (NIV). Average ICU LOS was 16days in T1 and 25days in T2. During T1 78% transferred to ward level care, 48% in T2 and all these patients required on going dietetic input at ward level. In T1 41% were discharged from ICU on enteral nutrition which increased to 48% in T2. Type of nutrition support during ICU stay is described in the table below. [Formula presented] All COVID19 patients with and ICU LOS >48hours were assessed by a critical care Dietitian. Patient profile was similar in both cohorts and all required nutrition support either by ONS, EN, PN or a combination of these. All patients on NIV required ONS with increasing numbers being commenced on supplementary EN in T2. More patients also required supplementary PN in T2. On transfer to ward level care 100% of patients required nutrition support highlighting the need for on-going dietetic input. Disclosure of Interest: None Declared

2.
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN ; 48:511, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2003966

ABSTRACT

The aim of this analysis was to compare route and adequacy of nutrition support in patients with COVID19 admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) between March-June 2020 (T1) compared to January-April 2021 (T2). Parameters related to nutrition support were collected from the records of all patients admitted to ICU with COVID19 with length of stay of ≥7days on mechanical ventilation requiring artificial nutrition support. Data was collected during the late acute phase which was defined as day 4-7 post intubation. Energy and protein intake was compared to calculated estimated nutritional requirements. 35 patients met the inclusion criteria in T1, 94% were on enteral nutrition (EN), 3% parenteral nutrition (PN) and 3% EN+PN. In T2, there were 54 patients (92% EN, 2% PN and 6% EN+PN). [Formula presented] Of patients who achieved <70% of energy and protein requirements in T1 (n=17) 35% had constipation or ileus and 47% had GI intolerance (high gastric residual volumes or vomiting). In T2 (n=19), 84% experienced constipation or ileus and 63% had GI intolerance. 35% of patients in T1 had hypernatraemia vs. 47% in T2 and 41% in T1 had hyperglycaemia vs. 100% in T2 despite only 12% and 32% of patients respectively having a history of diabetes. Despite a higher incidence of GI intolerance in T2, a statistically significant improvement in achieving energy targets was noted. Learning from T1 showed that where strategies to improve GI tolerance are unsuccessful supplementary PN should be considered without delay to optimise nutritional intake. There was a clinically significant trend in protein intake which may be attributed to prompt initiation of modular protein supplements or perhaps an earlier transition from fat-based sedation. Meeting protein requirements while preventing overfeeding remains a challenge in the ICU. Disclosure of Interest: None Declared

3.
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN ; 48:505, 2022.
Article in English | EMBASE | ID: covidwho-2003960

ABSTRACT

Adequate protein and energy provision in critical care is associated with better clinical outcomes. The aim of this audit was to evaluate compliance with achieving recommended protein and energy targets in our Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and to explore the reasons for any deficits identified. Nutrition parameters were collected on patients admitted to our ICU between March and May 2021. Inclusion criteria were requirement for nutritional support and mechanical ventilation with an ICU length of stay ≥ 4 days. Patients with COVID19 were excluded. Protein and energy intakes were compared to best practice guidelines1. 51 patients met the inclusion criteria: 53% male, 47% female. Mean age was 59.6 years and mean length of stay was 19.9 days (range 5-61 days). Protein and energy intakes achieved as follows: [Formula presented] Of the patients who received < 80% of their nutritional requirements, the main barriers to achieving targets identified were fasting and constipation in this cohort. Cumulative deficit ranged from 0 - 903g protein and 0 - 12717kcal over duration of ICU stay. Mean deficit was 315g protein and 2945kcal. Of concern, 12 patients had a deficit of > 500g protein and 7 patients had > 5000kcal deficit. While 69% of patients met ≥ 80% protein requirements and 77% of patients met ≥ 80% energy requirements, we have identified areas to consider to improve nutritional adequacy including increasing awareness of minimising fasting times and the introduction of a bowel management protocol. References 1. Singer P, Blaser AR, Berger MM. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. Clin Nutr. 2019 1;38(1):48-79. Disclosure of Interest: None Declared

4.
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN ; 46:S650-S651, 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1540513
5.
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN ; 46:S645-S646, 2021.
Article in English | ScienceDirect | ID: covidwho-1540508
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL