Phase angle as a prognostic indicator in critically ill children: A systematic review.

Phase angle (PhA) may reflect the integrity of cellular membranes, hydration status, and total body cell mass. Studies have shown that PhA can be used as a good predictor for evaluation of disease severity in critically ill adults. However, there is a lack of studies assessing the association between PhA and clinical outcomes in critically ill children. This systematic review described the association between PhA at pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission with clinical outcomes in critically ill children. The search was conducted using PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE and LILACS until July 22, 2022. Studies that evaluate the association between PhA at PICU admission in critically ill children and clinical outcomes were eligible. Data regarding population, study design, setting, bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) protocol used, PhA classification, and outcome analysis were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Among the 4669 articles screened, five prospective studies were included. The studies have shown association between lower values of PhA at PICU admission with longer PICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, septic shock, and higher mortality risk. Small sample size, different clinical conditions, and methodological differences of the studies regarding BIA equipment and cutoffs of PhA were observed. Although the studies have limitations, the PhA has a potential role in predicting clinical outcomes in critically ill children. Larger studies with standardized PhA protocols and other relevant clinical outcomes are necessary.

Enteral Protein Supplementation in Critically Ill Children: A Randomized Controlled Pilot and Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Loss of muscle mass in critically ill children can negatively impact outcomes. The aims of this study were to conduct a pilot randomized control trial (RCT) to examine the difference in protein delivery and nitrogen balance in critically ill children with enteral protein supplementation vs controls. We also aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of the pilot trial. METHODS: This is a 3-arm RCT in critically ill children eligible for enteral nutrition (EN) therapy. Patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 groups: (1) control (routine EN), (2) polymeric protein module added to EN to reach protein goal by day 4, or (3) oligomeric protein supplementation. Demographics, clinical characteristics, nutrition status, and daily nutrition intake variables were recorded. Protein delivery, nitrogen balance, feasibility variables, and rate of adverse events were the outcomes. RESULTS: After screening 286 consecutive patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit over 11 months, we enrolled and randomized 25 patients. Twenty-two patients (88% of the enrolled) completed the study procedures. Significantly higher protein prescription and actual protein intake within the first 5 days was achieved in the intervention groups, compared with the control group. Nitrogen balance was obtained in 15 patients. There was no significant difference between the groups for the rate of adverse effects and clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: In our pilot trial, protein supplementation was safe and well tolerated. Our preliminary results suggest that a larger RCT is potentially feasible, with some modifications of the entry criteria. Trial enrollment was low, likely due to restrictive entry criteria.