RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the potential benefits of using an energy-dense, high-protein (HP) formula enriched with ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate (HMB), fructo-oligosaccharide (FOS), and vitamin D (VitD) for enteral feeding in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: This was a nested case-control multicenter study. Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 in whom enteral nutrition was not contraindicated and receiving an energy-dense, HP-HMB-FOS-VitD formula (1.5 kcal/mL; 21.5% of calories from protein; n = 53) were matched (1:1) by age (±1 y), sex, body mass index (±1 kg/m2) and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (±1 point) and compared with patients fed with a standard HP, fiber-free formula (1.25-1.3 kcal/mL; 20% of calories from protein; n = 53). The primary end point was daily protein intake (g/kg) on day 4. Protein-calorie intake on day 7, gastrointestinal intolerance, and clinical outcomes were addressed as secondary end points. RESULTS: The use of a HP-HMB-FOS-VitD formula resulted in higher protein intake on days 4 and 7 (P = 0.006 and P = 0.013, respectively), with similar energy intake but higher provision of calories from enteral nutrition at both times (P <0 .001 and P = 0.017, respectively). Gastrointestinal tolerance was superior, with fewer patients fed with a HP-HMB-FOS-VitD formula reporting at least one symptom of intolerance (55 versus 74%; odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18-0.99; P = 0.046) and constipation (38 versus 66%; OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.12-0.61; P = 0.002). A lower rate of ICU-acquired infections was also observed (42 versus 72%; OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.65; P = 0.003), although no difference was found in mortality, ICU length of stay, and ventilation-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: An energy-dense, HP-HMB-FOS-VitD formula provided a more satisfactory protein intake and a higher provision of caloric intake from enteral nutrition than a standard HP formula in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Lower rates of gastrointestinal intolerance and ICU-acquired infections were also observed.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Surgery in the era of the current COVID-19 pandemic has been curtailed and restricted to emergency and certain oncological indications, and requires special attention concerning the safety of patients and health care personnel. Desufflation during or after laparoscopic surgery has been reported to entail a potential risk of contamination from 2019-nCoV through the aerosol generated during dissection and/or use of energy-driven devices. In order to protect the operating room staff, it is vital to filter the released aerosol. METHODS: The assemblage of two easily available and low-cost filter systems to prevent potential dissemination of Coronavirus via the aerosol is described. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients underwent laparoscopic surgeries with the use of one of the two described tools, both of which proved to be effective in smoke evacuation, without affecting laparoscopic visualization. CONCLUSION: The proposed systems are cost-effective, easily assembled and reproducible, and provide complete viral filtration during intra- and postoperative release of CO2.