The impact of proning on nutritional therapy in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Critically ill COVID-19-patients are at high risk of developing ICU-related malnutrition. This study aimed to examine the impact of proning on providing nutritional therapy for mechanically ventilated COVID-19-patients by comparing the achievement of nutritional goals and possible complications in patients who were proned vs. those who were not. Method(s) This is a single-center retrospective cohort study. We included all adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU from 01/03/2020 until 31/05/2020 who required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), excluding those referred for ECMO. Data were extracted from electronic patient files. Weight-based nutrition targets were set in agreement with ESPEN guidelines [1]. Result(s) 32 patients were included (prone n = 16). Both groups were comparable in age, sex, comorbidities, biochemical markers and Nutrition Risk Screening on admission. Time on IMV was longer in the prone group (p = 0.032). The total time in prone position ranged from 19.5 h to 13.16 d. All patients received a NG tube, 1 proned patient received a jejunal tube. 6 received TPN (p = 0.654). Metoclopramide was used more often in the prone group (p = 0.028). The prevalence of vomiting (n = 4 vs. n = 5), large gastric residuals (n = 0 vs. n = 3) and VAP (n = 11 vs. n = 10) were comparable for the non-prone vs. prone group, resp. Table 1 shows the percentage of targets reached. These were lower in the prone group, though not statistically significant. However, when correcting for SAPS III-score, the impact of proning declined. Conclusion(s) These limited data suggest there is no significant difference in feeding COVID-19 patients on IMV that need proning vs. those who do not, except for metoclopramide use. Overall, reaching nutrition targets in these patients is challenging. This model suggests that disease impact is a greater influence on reaching nutritional goals than proning itself.