Effect of Early Nutritional Support on Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

The initial nutritional delivery policy for patients with sepsis admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) has not been fully elucidated. We aimed to determine whether an initial adequate nutrition supply and route of nutrition delivery during the first week of sepsis onset improve clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with sepsis. We reviewed adult patients with sepsis and septic shock in the ICU in a single tertiary teaching hospital between 31 November 2013 and 20 May 2017. Poisson log-linear and Cox regressions were performed to assess the relationships between clinical outcomes and sex, modified nutrition risk in the critically ill score, sequential organ failure assessment score, route of nutrition delivery, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation score, and daily energy and protein delivery during the first week of sepsis onset. In total, 834 patients were included. Patients who had a higher protein intake during the first week of sepsis onset had a lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.39–0.78; p = 0.001). A higher energy intake was associated with a lower 30-day mortality (adjusted HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90–0.98; p = 0.003). The route of nutrition delivery was not associated with 1-year mortality in the group which was underfed; however, in patients who met > 70% of their nutritional requirement, enteral feeding (EN) with supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN) was superior to only EN (p = 0.016) or PN (p = 0.042). In patients with sepsis and septic shock, a high daily average protein intake may lower in-hospital mortality, and a high energy intake may lower the 30-day mortality, especially in those with a high modified nutrition risk in the critically ill scores. In patients who receive adequate energy, EN with supplemental PN may be better than only EN or PN, but not in underfed patients.     

The Effects of Enteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 could have impaired nutrient absorption due to disruption of the normal intestinal mucosa. They are often in a state of high inflammation, increased stress and catabolism as well as a significant increase in energy and protein requirements. Therefore, timely enteral nutrition support and the provision of optimal nutrients are essential in preventing malnutrition in these patients. Aim: This review aims to evaluate the effects of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-Analysis framework and PICO. Searches were conducted in databases, including EMBASE, Health Research databases and Google Scholar. Searches were conducted from database inception until 3 February 2022. The reference lists of articles were also searched for relevant articles. Results: Seven articles were included in the systematic review, and four articles were included in the meta-analysis. Two distinct areas were identified from the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis: the impact of enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal intolerance associated with enteral nutrition. The impact of enteral nutrition was further sub-divided into early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition and enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutrition. The results of the meta-analysis of the effects of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19 showed that, overall, enteral nutrition was effective in significantly reducing the risk of mortality in these patients compared with the control with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79, 0.99, p = 0.04). Following sub-group analysis, the early enteral nutrition group also showed a significant reduction in the risk of mortality with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79, 1.00, p = 0.05). The Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) of mortality in patients with COVID-19 by early enteral nutrition was 11%. There was a significant reduction in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the early enteral nutrition group compared with the delayed enteral nutrition group. There was no significant difference between enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition in relation to mortality (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59, 1.28, p = 0.48). Concerning the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay and days on mechanical ventilation, while there were reductions in the number of days in the enteral nutrition group compared to the control (delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition), the differences were not significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The results showed that early enteral nutrition significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the risk of mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, early enteral nutrition or enteral nutrition did not significantly (p > 0.05) reduce the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay and days on mechanical ventilation compared to delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition. More studies are needed to examine the effect of early enteral nutrition in patients with COVID-19.     

Sex-Specific Effects of Nutritional Supplements for Infants Born Early or Small: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis (ESSENCE IPD-MA) I—Cognitive Function and Metabolic Risk

Neonatal nutritional supplements are widely used to improve growth and development but may increase risk of later metabolic disease, and effects may differ by sex. We assessed effects of supplements on later development and metabolism. We searched databases and clinical trials registers up to April 2019. Participant-level data from randomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born preterm or small-for-gestational-age. Co-primary outcomes were cognitive impairment and metabolic risk. Supplementation did not alter cognitive impairment in toddlers (13 trials, n = 1410; adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.88 [95% CI 0.68, 1.13]; p = 0.31) or older ages, nor alter metabolic risk beyond 3 years (5 trials, n = 438; aRR 0.94 [0.76, 1.17]; p = 0.59). However, supplementation reduced motor impairment in toddlers (13 trials, n = 1406; aRR 0.76 [0.60, 0.97]; p = 0.03), and improved motor scores overall (13 trials, n = 1406; adjusted mean difference 1.57 [0.14, 2.99]; p = 0.03) and in girls not boys (p = 0.03 for interaction). Supplementation lowered triglyceride concentrations but did not affect other metabolic outcomes (high-density and low-density lipoproteins, cholesterol, fasting glucose, blood pressure, body mass index). Macronutrient supplementation for infants born small may not alter later cognitive function or metabolic risk, but may improve early motor function, especially for girls.     

Parenteral Fish Oil Lipid Emulsions in the Critically Ill

Introduction: ω‐3 Polyunsaturated fatty acids contained in fish oils (FO) possess major anti‐inflammatory, antioxidant, and immunologic properties that could be beneficial during critical illness. We hypothesized that parenteral FO‐containing emulsions may improve clinical outcomes in the critically ill. Methods: We searched computerized databases from 1980–2012. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in critically ill adult patients that evaluated FO‐containing emulsions, either in the context of parenteral nutrition (PN) or enteral nutrition (EN). Results: A total of 6 RCTs (n = 390 patients) were included; the mean methodological score of all trials was 10 (range, 6–13). When the results of these studies were aggregated, FO‐containing emulsions were associated with a trend toward a reduction in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–1.04; P = .08; heterogeneity I² = 0%) and a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation (weighted mean difference in days [WMD], ?1.41; 95% CI, ?3.43 to 0.61; P = .17). However, this strategy had no effect on infections (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.42–1.36; P = .35) and intensive care unit length of stay (WMD, ?0.46; 95% CI, ?4.87 to 3.95; P = .84, heterogeneity I² = 75%). Conclusion: FO‐containing lipid emulsions may be able to decrease mortality and ventilation days in the critically ill. However, because of the paucity of clinical data, there is inadequate evidence to recommend the routine use of parenteral FO. Large, rigorously designed RCTs are required to elucidate the efficacy of parenteral FO in the critically ill.     

Role of Probiotics in Short Bowel Syndrome in Infants and Children—A Systematic Review

Short bowel syndrome (SBS) is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality in children. Probiotics, due to their beneficial effects on the gastrointestinal tract (e.g., improving gut barrier function, motility, facilitation of intestinal adaptation and decreasing pathogen load and inflammation) may have a therapeutic role in the management of SBS. To conduct a systematic review of the current evidence for the effects of probiotic supplementation in children with SBS, the standard Cochrane methodology for systematic reviews was used. The databases, Pubmed, Embase, ACTR, CENTRAL, and the international trial registry, and reference lists of articles were searched for randomised (RCT) or quasi-randomised controlled trials reporting on the use of probiotics in SBS. Our search revealed no RCTs on the use of probiotics in children with SBS. We found one small cross-over RCT (placebo controlled crossover clinical trial), one case control study and nine case reports on the use of probiotics in children with SBS. In the crossover RCT, there was no consistent effect on intestinal permeability (primary outcome) after supplementation with Lactobacillus rhamnosus (LGG) in nine children with SBS. The case control study (four cases: four controls) reported a trend for increase in height and weight velocity and improvement in non-clinical outcomes, such as gut flora, lymphocyte count and serum prealbumin. Five of the nine case reports showed that children (n = 12) with SBS were benefited (e.g., cessation of diarrhoea, improved faecal flora, weight gain and weaning from parenteral nutrition) by probiotic supplementation. The remaining four reported on the adverse effects, such as Lactobacillus sepsis (n = 3) and D-lactic acidosis (n = 2). There is insufficient evidence on the effects of probiotics in children with SBS. The safety and efficacy of probiotic supplementation in this high-risk cohort needs to be evaluated in large definitive trials.     

Calorie Intake of Enteral Nutrition and Clinical Outcomes in Acutely Critically Ill Patients

Background: The appropriate calorie intake to be provided to critically ill patients via enteral nutrition (EN) remains unclear. We performed a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials to compare the effect of initial underfeeding and full feeding in acutely critically ill patients. Materials and Methods: We searched the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared underfeeding with full feeding in critically ill patients. The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile colitis, other infectious complications, and gastrointestinal intolerance. Results: In total, 4 studies were included in this meta‐analysis. There was no significant difference in overall mortality between the underfeeding and full‐feeding groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74–1.19; I² = 26.6%; P = .61). Subgroup analysis of the underfeeding subgroup that was fed ≥33.3% of the standard caloric requirement indicated that overall mortality was significantly lower in this underfeeding subgroup than in the full‐feeding group (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40–1.00; I² = 0%; P = .05). In contrast, no difference in overall mortality was noted between the underfeeding subgroup that was fed <33.3% of the standard caloric requirement and the full‐feeding group. The length of hospital stay and length of ICU stay did not differ between the 2 groups. Moreover, no differences in other secondary clinical outcomes were noted. Conclusions: None of the analyzed clinical outcomes for the acutely critically ill patients were significantly influenced by the calorie intake of the initial EN.     

A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines

Background: Due to the high prevalence of obesity in adults, nutrition support clinicians are encountering greater numbers of obese patients who require nutrition support during hospitalization. The purpose of this clinical guideline is to serve as a framework for the nutrition support care of adult patients with obesity. Method: A systematic review of the best available evidence to answer a series of questions regarding management of nutrition support in patients with obesity was undertaken and evaluated using concepts adopted from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group. A consensus process, that includes consideration of the strength of the evidence together with the risks and benefits to the patient, was used to develop the clinical guideline recommendations prior to multiple levels of external and internal review and approval by the A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors. Questions: (1) Do clinical outcomes vary across levels of obesity in critically ill or hospitalized non?intensive care unit (ICU) patients? (2) How should energy requirements be determined in obese critically ill or hospitalized non‐ICU patients? (3) Are clinical outcomes improved with hypocaloric, high protein diets in hospitalized patients? (4) In obese patients who have had a malabsorptive or restrictive surgical procedure, what micronutrients should be evaluated?     

Sex-Specific Effects of Nutritional Supplements for Infants Born Early or Small: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis (ESSENCE IPD-MA) II: Growth

Neonatal nutritional supplements may improve early growth for infants born small, but effects on long-term growth are unclear and may differ by sex. We assessed the effects of early macronutrient supplements on later growth. We searched databases and clinical trials registers from inception to April 2019. Participant-level data from randomised trials were included if the intention was to increase macronutrient intake to improve growth or development of infants born preterm or small-for-gestational-age. Co-primary outcomes were cognitive impairment and metabolic risk. Supplementation did not alter BMI in childhood (kg/m²: adjusted mean difference (aMD) −0.11[95% CI −0.47, 0.25], p = 0.54; 3 trials, n = 333). Supplementation increased length (cm: aMD 0.37[0.01, 0.72], p = 0.04; 18 trials, n = 2008) and bone mineral content (g: aMD 10.22[0.52, 19.92], p = 0.04; 6 trials, n = 313) in infancy, but not at older ages. There were no differences between supplemented and unsupplemented groups for other outcomes. In subgroup analysis, supplementation increased the height z-score in male toddlers (aMD 0.20[0.02, 0.37], p = 0.03; 10 trials, n = 595) but not in females, and no significant sex interaction was observed (p = 0.21). Macronutrient supplementation for infants born small may not alter BMI in childhood. Supplementation increased growth in infancy, but these effects did not persist in later life. The effects did not differ between boys and girls.     

Hypoenergetic feeding does not improve outcomes in critically ill patients with premorbid obesity: a post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Optimal energy goals for adult, obese critically ill surgical patients are unclear. To date, there has been little data comparing feeding regimens for obese and non-obese critically ill surgical patients and the effect on outcomes. The objective was to compare the effect of hypoenergetic and euenergetic feeding goals in critically ill obese patients on outcomes, including infection, intensive care unit length of stay, and mortality. We hypothesized that hypoenergetic feeding of patients with premorbid obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg•m⁻²) during critical illness does not affect clinical outcomes. Post hoc analyses were performed on critically ill surgical patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized to receive 25-30 kcal•kg⁻¹•d⁻¹ (105-126 kJ.kg⁻¹•d⁻¹, euenergetic) or 12.5-15 kcal•kg⁻¹•d⁻¹ (52-63 kJ.kg⁻¹ •d⁻¹, hypoenergetic), with equal protein allocation (1.5 g•kg⁻¹•d⁻¹). The effect of feeding regimen on outcomes in obese and nonobese patients were assessed. Of the 83 patients, 30 (36.1%) were obese (body mass index ≥ 30 kg•m⁻²). Average energy intake differed based on feeding regimen (hypoenergetic: 982±61 vs euenergetic: 1338±92 kcal•d⁻¹, P = .02). Comparing obese and nonobese patients, there was no difference in the percentage acquiring an infection (66.7% [20/30] vs 77.4% [41/53], P = .29), intensive care unit length of stay (16.4±3.7 vs 14.3±0.9 days, P = .39), or mortality (10% [3/30] vs 7.6% [4/53], P = .7). Within the subset of obese patients, the percentage acquiring an infection (hypoenergetic: 78.9% [15/19] vs euenergetic: 45.5% [5/11], P = .11) was not affected by the feeding regimen. Within the subset of nonobese patients, there was a trend toward more infections in the euenergetic group (hypoenergetic: 63.6% [14/22] vs euenergetic: 87.1% [27/31], P = .05). Hypoenergetic feeding does not appear to affect clinical outcomes positively or negatively in critically ill patients with premorbid obesity.     

Stress Hyperglycemia and Osteocalcin in COVID-19 Critically Ill Patients on Artificial Nutrition

We aimed to study the possible association of stress hyperglycemia in COVID-19 critically ill patients with prognosis, artificial nutrition, circulating osteocalcin, and other serum markers of inflammation and compare them with non-COVID-19 patients. Fifty-two critical patients at the intensive care unit (ICU), 26 with COVID-19 and 26 non-COVID-19, were included. Glycemic control, delivery of artificial nutrition, serum osteocalcin, total and ICU stays, and mortality were recorded. Patients with COVID-19 had higher ICU stays, were on artificial nutrition for longer (p = 0.004), and needed more frequently insulin infusion therapy (p = 0.022) to control stress hyperglycemia. The need for insulin infusion therapy was associated with higher energy (p = 0.001) and glucose delivered through artificial nutrition (p = 0.040). Those patients with stress hyperglycemia showed higher ICU stays (23 ± 17 vs. 11 ± 13 days, p = 0.007). Serum osteocalcin was a good marker for hyperglycemia, as it inversely correlated with glycemia at admission in the ICU (r = −0.476, p = 0.001) and at days 2 (r = −0.409, p = 0.007) and 3 (r = −0.351, p = 0.049). In conclusion, hyperglycemia in critically ill COVID-19 patients was associated with longer ICU stays. Low circulating osteocalcin was a good marker for stress hyperglycemia.     

Effect of Combined Protein-Enriched Enteral Nutrition and Early Cycle Ergometry in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients—A Pilot Study

Background: Cycle ergometry (CE) is a method of exercise used in clinical practice. Limited data demonstrate its effectiveness in critically ill patients. We aimed to evaluate the combination of CE and a high-protein diet in critically ill patients. Methods: This was an open label pilot trial comparing conventional physiotherapy with enteral nutrition (EN) (control, Group 1), CE with EN (Group 2), and CE with protein-enriched EN (Group 3). The primary outcome was length of ventilation (LOV). Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, length of ICU stay (ICU LOS), length of hospital stay (Hospital LOS), and rate of re-intubation. Results: Per protocol, 41 ICU patients were enrolled. Thirteen patients were randomized to Group 1 (control), fourteen patients to Group 2, and fourteen patients to Group 3 (study groups). We found no statistically significant difference in LOV between the study arms (14.2 ± 9.6 days, 15.8 ± 7.1 days, and 14.9 ± 9.4 days, respectively, p = 0.89). Secondary outcomes did not demonstrate any significant differences between arms. Conclusions: In this pilot trial, CE combined with either standard EN or protein-enriched EN was not associated with better clinical outcomes, as compared to conventional physiotherapy with standard EN. Larger trials are needed in order to further evaluate this combination.     

Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? A systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE: Nutritional support is part of the standard of care for the critically ill adult patient. In the average patient in the intensive care unit who has no contraindications to enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN), the choice of route for nutritional support may be influenced by several factors. Because EN and PN are associated with risks and benefits, we systematically reviewed and critically appraised the literature to compare EN with PN the critically ill patient. METHODS: We searched computerized bibliographic databases, personal files, and relevant reference lists to identify potentially eligible studies. Only randomized clinical trials that compared EN with PN in critically ill patients with respect to clinically important outcomes were included in this review. In an independent fashion, relevant data on the methodology and outcomes of primary studies were abstracted in duplicate. The studies were subsequently aggregated statistically. RESULTS: There were 13 studies that met the inclusion criteria and, hence, were included in our meta-analysis. The use of EN as opposed to PN was associated with a significant decrease in infectious complications (relative risk = 0.64, 95% confidence interval = 0.47 to 0.87, P = 0.004) but not with any difference in mortality rate (relative risk = 1.08, 95% confidence interval = 0.70 to 1.65, P = 0.7). There was no difference in the number of days on a ventilator or length of stay in the hospital between groups receiving EN or PN (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD] = 0.07, 95% confidence interval = -0.2 to 0.33, P = 0.6). PN was associated with a higher incidence of hyperglycemia. Data that compared days on a ventilator and the development of diarrhea in patients who received EN versus PN were inconclusive. In the EN and PN groups, complications with enteral and parenteral access were seen. Four studies documented cost savings with EN as opposed to PN. CONCLUSION: The use of EN as opposed to PN results in an important decrease in the incidence of infectious complications in the critically ill and may be less costly. EN should be the first choice for nutritional support in the critically ill.     

Gastric vs Small Bowel Feeding in Critically Ill Neurologically Injured Patients

Background: To evaluate gastric compared with small bowel feeding on nutrition and clinical outcomes in critically ill, neurologically injured patients. Materials and Methods: International, prospective observational studies involving 353 intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Eligible patients were critically ill, mechanically ventilated with neurological diagnoses who remained in the ICU and received enteral nutrition (EN) exclusively for at least 3 days. Sites provided data, including patient characteristics, nutrition practices, and 60‐day outcomes. Patients receiving gastric or small bowel feeding were compared. Covariates including age, sex, body mass index, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score were used in the adjusted analyses. Results: Of the 1691 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 1407 (94.1%) received gastric feeding and 88 (5.9%) received small bowel feeding. Adequacy of calories from EN was highest in the gastric group (60.2% and 52.3%, respectively, unadjusted analysis; P = .001), but this was not significant in the adjusted model (P = .428). The likelihood of EN interruptions due to gastrointestinal (GI) complications was higher for the gastric group (19.6% vs 4.7%, unadjusted model; P = .015). There were no significant differences in the rate of discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66–1.12; P = .270) or the rate of being discharged alive from the ICU (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72–1.23; P = .641) and hospital (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.87–1.55; P = .307) after adjusting for confounders. Conclusions: Despite a higher likelihood of EN interruptions due to GI complications, gastric feeding may be associated with better nutrition adequacy, but neither route is associated with better clinical outcomes.     

Is Omega-3 Fatty Acids Enriched Nutrition Support Safe for Critical Ill Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To systematically review the effects of omega-3 poly unsaturated fatty acids (FA) enriched nutrition support on the mortality of critically illness patients. Methods: Databases of Medline, ISI, Cochrane Library, and Chinese Biomedicine Database were searched and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified. We enrolled RCTs that compared fish oil enriched nutrition support and standard nutrition support. Major outcome is mortality. Methodological quality assessment was conducted based on Modified Jadad’s score scale. For control heterogeneity, we developed a method that integrated I² test, nutritional support route subgroup analysis and clinical condition of severity. RevMan 5.0 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used for meta-analysis. Results: Twelve trials involving 1208 patients that met all the inclusion criteria. Heterogeneity existed between the trials. A random model was used, there was no significant effect on mortality RR, 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.62, 1.09), p = 0.18. Knowing that the route of fish oil administration may affect heterogeneity, we categorized the trials into two sub-groups: parenteral administration (PN) of omega-3 and enteral administration (EN) of omega-3. Six trials administered omega-3 FA through PN. Pooled results indicated that omega-3 FA had no significant effect on mortality, RR 0.76, 95% CI (0.52, 1.10), p = 0.15. Six trials used omega-3 fatty acids enriched EN. After excluded one trial that was identified as source of heterogeneity, pooled data indicated omega-3 FA enriched EN significant reduce mortality, RR=0.69, 95% CI [0.53, 0.91] (p = 0.007). Conclusion: Omega-3 FA enriched nutrition support is safe. Due to the limited sample size of the included trials, further large-scale RCTs are needed.     

Prevalence,Risk Factors,Clinical Consequences,and Treatment of Enteral Feed Intolerance During Critical Illness

Background: We aimed to determine the incidence of enteral feed intolerance and factors associated with intolerance and to assess the influence of intolerance on nutrition and clinical outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from an international observational cohort study of nutrition practices among 167 intensive care units (ICUs). Data were collected on nutrition adequacy, ventilator‐free days (VFDs), ICU stay, and 60‐day mortality. Intolerance was defined as interruption of enteral nutrition (EN) due to gastrointestinal (GI) reasons (large gastric residuals, abdominal distension, emesis, diarrhea, or subjective discomfort). Logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for intolerance and their clinical significance. A sensitivity analysis restricted to sites specifying a gastric residual volume ≥200 mL to identify intolerance was also conducted. Results: Data from 1,888 ICU patients were included. The incidence of intolerance was 30.5% and occurred after a median 3 days from EN initiation. Patients remained intolerant for a mean (±SD) duration of 1.9 ± 1.3 days . Intolerance was associated with worse nutrition adequacy vs the tolerant (56% vs 64%, P < .0001), fewer VFDs (2.5 vs 11.2, P < .0001), increased ICU stay (14.4 vs 11.3 days, P < .0001), and increased mortality (30.8% vs 26.2, P = .04). The sensitivity analysis demonstrated that intolerance remained associated with negative outcomes. Although mortality was greater among the intolerant patients, this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Intolerance occurs frequently during EN in critically ill patients and is associated with poorer nutrition and clinical outcomes.     

Severity of illness influences the efficacy of enteral feeding route on clinical outcomes in patients with critical illness

BackgroundFew trials have studied the influence of illness severity on clinical outcomes of different tube-feeding routes. Whether gastric or postpyloric feeding route is more beneficial to patients receiving enteral nutrition remains controversial.ObjectiveTo test whether illness severity influences the efficacy of enteral feeding route on clinical outcomes in patients with critical illness.DesignA 2-year prospective, randomized, clinical study was conducted to assess the differences between the nasogastric (NG) and nasoduodenal (ND) tube feedings on clinical outcomes.Participants/settingOne hundred one medical adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring enteral nutrition were enrolled in this study.InterventionPatients were randomly assigned to the NG (n=51) or ND (n=50) feeding route during a 21-day study period. Illness severity was dichotomized as “less severe” and “more severe,” with the cutoff set at Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 20.Main outcome measuresDaily energy and protein intake, feeding complications (eg, gastric retention/vomiting/diarrhea/gastrointestinal bleeding), length of ICU stay, hospital mortality, nitrogen balance, albumin, and prealbumin.Statistical analyses performedTwo-tailed Student t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze significant differences between variables in the study groups. Multiple regression was used to assess the effects of illness severity and enteral feeding routes on clinical outcomes.ResultsAmong less severely ill patients, no differences existed between the NG and ND groups in daily energy and protein intake, feeding complications, length of ICU stay, and nitrogen balance. Among more severely ill patients, the NG group experienced lower energy and protein intake, more tube feeding complications, longer ICU stay, and poorer nitrogen balance than the ND group.ConclusionsTo optimize nutritional support and taking medical resources into account, the gastric feeding route is recommended for less severely ill patients and the postpyloric feeding route for more severely ill patients.