Timing of parenteral nutrition is associated with adequacy of nutrient delivery and anthropometry in critically ill children: A single-center study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN) use in the pediatric intensive care unit (ICU) is unclear. We aimed to describe patterns of PN use in the ICU and the association between the timing of PN initiation and macronutrient delivery and anthropometry. METHODS: We enrolled patients (aged <18 years) with an ICU stay >3 days were started on PN in the ICU. Initiation within 48 hours of admission was deemed as early, and duration <5 days was deemed as short. We used multivariable analysis to examine the association between PN timing and macronutrient delivery adequacy (percentage of the prescribed target that was actually delivered) and weight-for-age z-score (WAZ) over hospital stay. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were included. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to initiate PN was 4 (1, 6) days, and in 33%, PN was initiated early. Median (IQR) PN duration was 8 (5, 14) days, and in 16.8%, duration was short. Median (IQR) adequacies for total energy and protein delivery were 55% (40, 74) and 72% (44, 81) in the early PN group compared with 29% (3, 50) and 31% (4, 47), respectively, in the late PN group (P < .001). The late PN group had a 0.50-unit greater decline in mean WAZ compared with the early PN group (95% CI, 0.11-0.89; P = .012). CONCLUSION: Late PN initiation was associated with significantly lower adequacy of macronutrient delivery and greater decline in WAZ in critically ill children. The relationship between PN timing patient outcomes must be further examined.

Bedside Postpyloric Tube Placement and Enteral Nutrition Delivery in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition (EN) delivery may be more effective via a postpyloric (PP) feeding tube in critically ill children, but tube placement can be challenging. We aimed to describe PP tube placement and EN practices in a multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) after the implementation of a nurse-led bedside PP tube-placement program. METHODS: In a single-center retrospective study, we identified 100 consecutive patients admitted to the PICU for >48 hours and for whom PP tube placement was attempted. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and details of PP tube placement and EN delivery were examined. RESULTS: The study cohort had a median age (25th, 75th percentiles) of 3.89 years (0.55, 14.86); 66% were male. Respiratory illness was the primary diagnosis of admission (55%); 92% were on respiratory support. Risk of aspiration was the primary indication for PP tube placement (48%). Bedside placement was the initial technique for PP tube placement in 93% of patients (successful for 84.9%) and was not associated with serious complications. Eighty-seven patients with a PP tube started EN and received a median 73.9% (12.3%, 100%) of prescribed energy goal on day 3 after EN initiation. PP EN allowed 14 of 39 patients receiving parenteral nutrition (PN) to transition off PN 7 days after EN initiation. Thirty-five percent of EN interruptions were due to feeding-tube dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Bedside PP tube placement is safe and feasible and allows for effective EN delivery and decreased PN use when applicable. Interruptions in PP EN due to tube malfunction are prevalent.