Evaluation of Nutritional Practices in the Critical Care patient (The ENPIC study): Does nutrition really affect ICU mortality?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The importance of artificial nutritional therapy is underrecognized, typically being considered an adjunctive rather than a primary therapy. We aimed to evaluate the influence of nutritional therapy on mortality in critically ill patients. METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study included adult patients needing artificial nutritional therapy for >48 h if they stayed in one of 38 participating intensive care units for ≥72 h between April and July 2018. Demographic data, comorbidities, diagnoses, nutritional status and therapy (type and details for ≤14 days), and outcomes were registered in a database. Confounders such as disease severity, patient type (e.g., medical, surgical or trauma), and type and duration of nutritional therapy were also included in a multivariate analysis, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were reported. RESULTS: We included 639 patients among whom 448 (70.1%) and 191 (29.9%) received enteral and parenteral nutrition, respectively. Mortality was 25.6%, with non-survivors having the following characteristics: older age; more comorbidities; higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (6.6 ± 3.3 vs 8.4 ± 3.7; P < 0.001); greater nutritional risk (Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill [NUTRIC] score: 3.8 ± 2.1 vs 5.2 ± 1.7; P < 0.001); more vasopressor requirements (70.4% vs 83.5%; P=0.001); and more renal replacement therapy (12.2% vs 23.2%; P=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (HR: 1.023; 95% CI: 1.008-1.038; P=0.003), higher SOFA score (HR: 1.096; 95% CI: 1.036-1.160; P=0.001), higher NUTRIC score (HR: 1.136; 95% CI: 1.025-1.259; P=0.015), requiring parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition (HR: 2.368; 95% CI: 1.168-4.798; P=0.017), and a higher mean Kcal/Kg/day intake (HR: 1.057; 95% CI: 1.015-1.101; P=0.008) were associated with mortality. By contrast, a higher mean protein intake protected against mortality (HR: 0.507; 95% CI: 0.263-0.977; P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Old age, higher organ failure scores, and greater nutritional risk appear to be associated with higher mortality. Patients who need parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition may represent a high-risk subgroup for mortality due to illness severity and problems receiving appropriate nutritional therapy. Mean calorie and protein delivery also appeared to influence outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicaTrials.gov NCT: 03634943.

A guide to enteral nutrition in intensive care units: 10 expert tips for the daily practice.

The preferential use of the oral/enteral route in critically ill patients over gut rest is uniformly recommended and applied. This article provides practical guidance on enteral nutrition in compliance with recent American and European guidelines. Low-dose enteral nutrition can be safely started within 48 h after admission, even during treatment with small or moderate doses of vasopressor agents. A percutaneous access should be used when enteral nutrition is anticipated for ≥ 4 weeks. Energy delivery should not be calculated to match energy expenditure before day 4-7, and the use of energy-dense formulas can be restricted to cases of inability to tolerate full-volume isocaloric enteral nutrition or to patients who require fluid restriction. Low-dose protein (max 0.8 g/kg/day) can be provided during the early phase of critical illness, while a protein target of > 1.2 g/kg/day could be considered during the rehabilitation phase. The occurrence of refeeding syndrome should be assessed by daily measurement of plasma phosphate, and a phosphate drop of 30% should be managed by reduction of enteral feeding rate and high-dose thiamine. Vomiting and increased gastric residual volume may indicate gastric intolerance, while sudden abdominal pain, distension, gastrointestinal paralysis, or rising abdominal pressure may indicate lower gastrointestinal intolerance.

Utility of SOFA and Δ-SOFA scores for predicting outcome in critically ill patients from the emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: The condition of critically ill patients in the emergency department (ED) varies from moment to moment. The aims of this study are to quantify sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) and changes in SOFA scores over time and determine its prognostic impact. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective observational cohort study. We included 269 patients consecutively admitted to the ICU from the ED over 18 months. The SOFA scores at ED admission (ED-SOFA) and ICU admission (ICU-SOFA) were obtained. Relative changes in SOFA scores were calculated as follows: Δ-SOFA=ICU-SOFA-ED-SOFA. Patients were divided into two groups depending on the Δ-SOFA score: (a) Δ-SOFA=0-1; and (b) Δ-SOFA more than or equal to 2. RESULTS: The median ED-SOFA score was two points (interquartile range: 1-4.5) and the Δ-SOFA score was 2 points (interquartile range: 0-3). The Δ-SOFA score was more powerful (area under the curve: 0.81) than the ED-SOFA score (area under the curve: 0.75) in predicting hospital mortality. Sixteen (6%) patients had a Δ-SOFA score less than 0, 116 (43%) patients had a Δ-SOFA=0-1, and 137 (51%) patients had a Δ-SOFA of at least 2 points. The probability of being alive at hospital discharge was 51 and 86.5% in Δ-SOFA of at least 2 and Δ-SOFA=0-1 groups, respectively (P<0.001). Risk factors for an increase of two or more SOFA points were age, cirrhosis, a diagnosis of sepsis, and a prolonged ED stay. CONCLUSION: SOFA and changes in the SOFA score over time are potentially useful tools for risk stratification when applied to critically ill patients admitted to ICUs from the ED.

Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness. METHODS: We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We defined "early" EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds. RESULTS: We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access.

Effect of an enteral diet enriched with eicosapentaenoic acid, gamma-linolenic acid and anti-oxidants on the outcome of mechanically ventilated, critically ill, septic patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To assess the effect of an enteral diet enriched with eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), and anti-oxidants on the incidence of organ dysfunction and nosocomial infections in septic patients with acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared with a standard enteral diet. METHODS: This prospective, randomized, open-label study was performed in 11 Spanish intensive care units (ICU). Adult patients with sepsis and acute lung injury or ARDS were randomly allocated to receive either an EPA-GLA diet or a control diet. RESULTS: Of the 198 patients that were eligible, 160 were randomized and 132 were studied. Patient demographics, APACHE II and SOFA scores, and nutritional variables on admission were similar between the EPA-GLA diet and control diet groups. The EPA-GLA diet group showed a trend toward a decreased SOFA score, but it was not significant. No differences were observed in the PaO(2)/FiO(2) ratio or the days on mechanical ventilation between the groups. Incidence of infections was similar in the groups. The control group stayed longer in the ICU than the EPA-GLA diet group (16 vs. 18; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A diet enriched with EPA, GLA, and anti-oxidants does not improve gas exchange or decrease the incidence of novel organ failures in critically ill septic patients with acute lung injury or ARDS. Patients treated with the EPA-GLA diet stayed in the ICU for less time, but we did not find any differences in infectious complications.

Artificial liver support system in acute liver failure patients waiting liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To assess the efficacy of the Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System MARS (GAMBRO LUNDIA AB, Europe) in patients with acute liver failure waiting for liver transplantation. METHODOLOGY: Case-control study in a medical-surgical ICU of a referral hospital. Patients admitted to ICU with severe acute liver failure of any etiology were included. Conventional treatment was applied in all cases according to patient's clinical condition. Patients were treated with MARS after the implementation of this therapy in the ICU. Patients without this treatment were the control group. RESULTS: Were included 45 patients (control group: 26, MARS group: 19). Comparison between groups showed only differences in plasma bilirrubin levels in the first 24 hours. ICU mortality was 52.63% in the treatment group and 42.3% in the control group (p = 0.49). In the control group 17 patients (65.4%) received a liver transplant and 11 (57.9%) in the MARS group. ICU mortality was lower for transplanted patients in the study group (27.27% vs. 87.5%) (p = 0.019). Kaplan-Meier survival curves indicate that MARS-treated patients before liver transplantation had better survival. CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy with MARS and liver transplantation seems to be the more effective therapeutic option for patients with severe ALF.