RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: medical nutritional treatment (MNT) can be complex and may be associated with potential metabolic complications, which has been recently described as nutritrauma. OBJECTIVE: the aim of our work is to describe whether the application of the nutritrauma concept in real life is feasible and useful to detect the metabolic complications associated with the prescription of MNT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: in this descriptive, prospective study at a single center we enrolled 30 consecutive critically ill patients in a 14-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit. The nutritrauma strategy implementation was based in four "M" steps: Metabolic screening, MNT prescription, biochemical Monitoring, and nutritional Management. RESULTS: we analyzed 28 patients (mean age, 69.7 ± 11.3 years; APACHE II, 18.1 ± 8.1; SOFA, 7.5 ± 3.7; Nutric Score, modified, 4.3 ± 2.01, and mean BMI, 27.2 ± 3.8). The main cause of admission was sepsis (46.4 %). Length of ICU stay was 20.6 ± 15.1 days; 39.3 % of subjects died during their ICU stay. Enteral nutrition (82.1 %) was more frequent than parenteral nutrition (17.9 %). During nutritional monitoring, 54 specific laboratory determinations were made. Hyperglycemia was the most frequent metabolic alteration (83.3 % of measurements). Electrolyte disturbances included hypocalcemia (50 %), hypophosphatemia (29.6 %) and hypokalemia (27.8 %). The most frequent lipid profile abnormalities were hypocholesterolemia (64.8 %) and hypertriglyceridemia (27.8 %). Furthermore, nutritional prescription was modified for 53.6 % of patients: increased protein dosage (25 %), increased calorie dosage (21.4 %) and change to organ-specific diet (17.8 %). CONCLUSIONS: in conclusion, the application of the nutritrauma approach facilitates detection of metabolic complications and an evaluation of the appropriate prescription of MNT.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Patients who suffer acquired brain injury (ABI) require a great variety of drugs. Furthermore, the lack of evidence on the medication effects in this type of patient increases off-label prescription. The aim of this study was to describe the pattern of medication use and the practice of prescribing off-label drugs in these patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in patients with ABI, of either traumatic or non-traumatic cause, admitted to a neurorehabilitation hospital for rehabilitation. Demographic and clinical data and prevalence of medication use and off-label prescription were collected. RESULTS: The majority of the studied patients (85.2%) were considered polymedicated since they were prescribed ≥ 6 drugs concomitantly. In traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, antidepressants (81.5%) were the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) group's most prescribed versus antithrombotic agents (80.5%) in non-traumatic brain injury (N-TBI) patients. Up to 37.3% of all active substances prescribed in TBI patients were off-label compared with 24.9% in N-TBI patients. The most prescribed off-label active substances in both groups were those related to the Nervous System (N) ATC group to treat neurobehavioural problems. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary pharmacotherapeutic follow-up of these patients would be essential to address the high prescription rate of medications and the off-label prescription practice. In this way, medication problems related to polypharmacy could be minimised and the benefit-risk ratio of prescribed off-label drugs could be ensured according to the available medical evidence.
