Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Añadir filtros

Base de datos
Tipo del documento
Intervalo de año
1.
Clin Nutr ; 42(4): 568-578, 2023 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2267868

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with obesity have unique and complex nutritional needs, with clinical practice guidelines conflicting regarding recommended energy targets. The aim of this systematic review was to 1) describe measured resting energy expenditure (mREE) reported in the literature and; 2) compare mREE to predicted energy targets using the European (ESPEN) and American (ASPEN) guideline recommendations when indirect calorimetry is not available in critically ill patients with obesity. METHODS: The protocol was registered apriori and literature was searched until 17th March, 2022. Original studies were included if they reported mREE using indirect calorimetry in critically ill patients with obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m2). Group-level mREE data was reported as per the primary publication using mean ± standard deviation or median [interquartile range]. Where individual patient data was available, Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess mean bias (95% limits of agreement) between guideline recommendations and mREE targets (i.e. ASPEN for BMI 30-50, 11-14 kcal/kg actual weight compared to 70% mREE and ESPEN 20-25 kcal/kg adjusted weight compared to 100% mREE). Accuracy was assessed by the percentage (%) of estimates within ±10% of mREE targets. RESULTS: After searching 8019 articles, 24 studies were included. mREE ranged from 1607 ± 385 to 2919 [2318-3362]kcal and 12-32kcal/actual body weight. For the ASPEN recommendations of 11-14 kcal/kg, a mean bias of -18% (-50% to +13%) and 4% (-36% to +44%) was observed, respectively (n = 104). For the ESPEN recommendations 20-25 kcal/kg, a bias of -22% (-51% to +7%) and -4% (-43% to +34%), was observed, respectively (n = 114). The guideline recommendations were able to accurately predict mREE targets on 30%-39% occasions (11-14 kcal/kg actual) and 15%-45% occasions (20-25 kcal/kg adjusted), for ASPEN and ESPEN recommendations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Measured energy expenditure in critically ill patients with obesity is variable. Energy targets generated using predictive equations recommended in both the ASPEN and ESPEN clinical guidelines have poor agreement with mREE and are frequently not able to accurately predict within ±10% of mREE, most commonly underestimating energy needs.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crítica , Obesidad , Humanos , Adulto , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Obesidad/terapia , Metabolismo Energético , Calorimetría Indirecta
2.
Clin Nutr ESPEN ; 44: 69-77, 2021 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242903

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed hospital systems globally, resulting in less experienced staff caring for critically ill patients within the intensive care unit (ICU). Many guidelines have been developed to guide nutrition care. AIM: To identify key guidelines or practice recommendations for nutrition support practices in critically ill adults admitted with COVID-19, to describe similarities and differences between recommendations, and to discuss implications for clinical practice. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify guidelines affiliated with or endorsed by international nutrition societies or dietetic associations which included recommendations for the nutritional management of critically ill adult patients with COVID-19. Data were extracted on pre-defined key aspects of nutritional care including nutrition prescription, delivery, monitoring and workforce recommendations, and key similarities and discrepancies, as well as implications for clinical practice were summarized. RESULTS: Ten clinical practice guidelines were identified. Similar recommendations included: the use of high protein, volume restricted enteral formula delivered gastrically and commenced early in ICU and introduced gradually, while taking into consideration non-nutritional calories to avoid overfeeding. Specific advice for patients in the prone position was common, and non-intubated patients were highlighted as a population at high nutritional risk. Major discrepancies included the use of indirect calorimetry to guide energy targets and advice around using gastric residual volumes (GRVs) to monitor feeding tolerance. CONCLUSION: Overall, common recommendations around formula type and route of feeding exist, with major discrepancies being around the use of indirect calorimetry and GRVs, which reflect international ICU nutrition guidelines.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19/complicaciones , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Desnutrición/complicaciones , Desnutrición/prevención & control , Política Nutricional , Necesidades Nutricionales , Consenso , Enfermedad Crítica , Humanos , Estado Nutricional , SARS-CoV-2
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA