-
American Journal of Health-system... Jun 2024
Topics: Humans; Parenteral Nutrition; Patient Safety
PubMed: 38869254
DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxae076 -
Nutrition in Clinical Practice :... Aug 2016The safety of parenteral nutrition (PN) administration in critically ill patients has been the subject of much controversy. Historically, PN administration has been... (Review)
Review
The safety of parenteral nutrition (PN) administration in critically ill patients has been the subject of much controversy. Historically, PN administration has been associated with an increased risk of bacterial and fungal infections, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Much of the data showing increased infectious complications compared with either no nutrition or enteral nutrition was derived from early studies conducted in the 1980s-2000s. Poor glucose control and hyperalimentation are confounding factors in many early studies, making it difficult to determine the true PN infection risks. While PN studies conducted during the past 10 years have failed to show the same infection rates, these risks continue to be cited as dogma. Potential reasons for such discordant results include improved glycemic control, avoidance of overfeeding, and improved sterility and central venous catheter care. Understanding the true infectious risk of PN administration in the intensive care unit is necessary to optimize patient care, as inappropriately withholding such nutrition is potentially deleterious. This review is meant to serve as a practical guide to the bedside clinician who is evaluating the risks and benefits of initiating PN in a critically ill patient. Each component of PN will be evaluated based on risk of infection, and the potential ways to mitigate risks will be discussed.
Topics: Bacterial Infections; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Humans; Infection Control; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Mycoses; Parenteral Nutrition; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Risk; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27317614
DOI: 10.1177/0884533616653808 -
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology... Feb 2020
Topics: Child; Humans; Parenteral Nutrition, Home; Parenteral Nutrition, Total
PubMed: 31978008
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000002580 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Aug 2016Both the optimal caloric intake and the best route of delivery of nutrition to critically ill patients fuel an intense debate. Recently, two large pragmatic,... (Review)
Review
Both the optimal caloric intake and the best route of delivery of nutrition to critically ill patients fuel an intense debate. Recently, two large pragmatic, multicenter, controlled, randomized clinical trials evaluated these issues in large cohorts of patients. In the CALORIES Study, the authors compared the parenteral with the enteral route as the most effective way to deliver early (e.g. within 36 hours from admission) nutritional support in critically ill adults in 33 English ICUs (N.=2388). The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality (33.1% in the parenteral group and 34.2% in the enteral group), as well as the infection rate, were similar in both groups, while patients of the parenteral group experienced less hypoglycemia and vomiting than the enteral group. In the PermiT Study, 894 enterally fed patients from 7 ICUs were randomized to a restrictive strategy for non-protein calories (e.g. "permissive underfeeding" - 40% to 60% of energy expenditure) or to standard feeding (70 to 100% of energy expenditure) for up to 2 weeks. The primary endpoint (90-day mortality) was similar in both groups (27.2% in the permissive-underfeeding group and 28.9% in the standard-feeding group) without significant differences in feeding intolerance, diarrhea or ICU-acquired infections. We herein discuss how these studies should be interpreted with regard to the existing evidence and propose some practical suggestions for nutrition management in the critically ill patient.
Topics: Critical Illness; Energy Intake; Energy Metabolism; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Nutritional Status; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26492447
DOI: No ID Found -
JPEN. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral... May 2020Children with cancer are at risk of treatment related gastrointestinal toxicity and malnutrition. Intestinal dysfunction may preclude or limit use of enteral nutrition,...
BACKGROUND
Children with cancer are at risk of treatment related gastrointestinal toxicity and malnutrition. Intestinal dysfunction may preclude or limit use of enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition (PN) may be required. Published indications for PN use in children with cancer are generally nonspecific. We sought to describe patterns of use, indications, and frequency of PN prescription in children with cancer and propose indicators to guide appropriate PN use.
METHODS
Retrospective chart review of children with cancer receiving inpatient PN in a tertiary referral pediatric hospital over 12 months was performed using electronic medical record search and paper records. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS
PN was prescribed to 88 patients in 111 episodes. Total use (2377 days) represented 24% of annual inpatient days in all children with cancer. Primary clinical indications were mucositis (40%), feed intolerance (29%), postoperative (16%), or "other" (15%), (including nasogastric tube refusal (n = 6)). Patients with hematological cancer had longer median episodes (19 vs 12.5 days) and earlier commencement of PN after diagnosis (50 vs 80 days) than children with nonhematological cancer. Most PN episodes longer than 28 days were in children with hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).
CONCLUSION
Inpatient PN use is common in childhood cancer. Indications include mucositis, feed intolerance, and surgical management. Patterns of use are influenced by cancer diagnosis and treatment, with greater use in children with hematological cancer and HSCT. Improved understanding and specific indications may guide appropriate PN prescription and minimize unnecessary risk, cost, and inconsistency in care.
Topics: Child; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Malnutrition; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 31332795
DOI: 10.1002/jpen.1685 -
The American Journal of Clinical... Sep 2023Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) on various nutritional interventions in hospitalized patients with or at risk of malnutrition are available, but... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) on various nutritional interventions in hospitalized patients with or at risk of malnutrition are available, but disagreements among findings raise questions about their validity in guiding practice.
OBJECTIVES
We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews in which all appropriate studies included in SRMAs are combined) to assess the quality of reviews, identify the types of interventions available (excluding enteral and parenteral nutrition), and re-analyze the effectiveness of interventions.
METHODS
The databases MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched. AMSTAR-2 was used for quality assessment and GRADE for certainty of evidence. Updated meta-analyses with risk of bias (ROB) by Cochrane ROB 2.0 were performed. Pooled effects were reported as relative risk (RR), with zero-events and publication bias adjustments, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) performed for mortality, readmissions, complications, length of stay, and quality of life.
RESULTS
A total of 66 randomized controlled trials were cited by the 19 SRMAs included in this umbrella review, and their data extracted and analyzed. Most clinical outcomes were discordant with variable effect sizes in both directions. In trials with low ROB, interventions targeting nutritional intake reduce mortality at 30 d (15 studies, n: 4156, RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.55, 0.94, P: 0.02, I: 6%, Certainty: High), 6 mo (27 studies, n: 6387, RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.71, 0.92, P = 0.001, I: 4%, Certainty: Moderate), and 12 mo (27 studies, n: 6387, RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.67, 0.95, P: 0.01, I: 33%, Certainty: Moderate), with TSA verifying an adequate sample size and robustness of the meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Existing evidence is sufficient to show that nutritional intervention is effective for mortality outcomes at 30 d, 6 mo, and 12 mo. Future clinical trials should focus on the effect of nutritional interventions on other clinical outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
The protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022341031).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Enteral Nutrition; Hospitals; Malnutrition; Parenteral Nutrition; Quality of Life; Systematic Reviews as Topic
PubMed: 37437779
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajcnut.2023.07.003 -
Current Opinion in Clinical Nutrition... May 2018Parenteral nutrition (PN) alone or as supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) has been shown to prevent negative cumulative energy balance, to improve protein delivery... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Parenteral nutrition (PN) alone or as supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) has been shown to prevent negative cumulative energy balance, to improve protein delivery and, in some studies, to reduce infectious morbidity in ICU patients who fail to cover their needs with enteral nutrition (EN) alone.
RECENT FINDINGS
The optimization of energy provision to an individualized energy target using either early PN or SPN within 3-4 days after admission has recently been reported to be a cost-saving strategy mediated by a reduction of infectious complications in selected intensive care patients.
SUMMARY
EN alone is often insufficient, or occasionally contraindicated, in critically ill patients and results in growing energy and protein deficit. The cost benefit of using early PN in patients with short-term relative contraindications to EN has been reported. In selected patients SPN has been associated with a decreased risk of infection, a reduced duration of mechanical ventilation, a shorter stay in the ICU. Altogether four studies have investigated the costs associated with these interventions since 2012: two of them from Australia and Switzerland have shown that optimization of energy provision using SPN results in cost reduction, conflicting with other studies. The latter encouraging findings require further validation.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Energy Intake; Enteral Nutrition; Health Care Costs; Humans; Infections; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Protein Deficiency; Respiration, Artificial
PubMed: 29356696
DOI: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000454 -
American Journal of Health-system... Jun 2024This article is based on presentations and discussions held at the International Safety and Quality of Parenteral Nutrition (PN) Summit concerning the acute care...
PURPOSE
This article is based on presentations and discussions held at the International Safety and Quality of Parenteral Nutrition (PN) Summit concerning the acute care setting. Some European practices presented in this article do not conform with USP general chapter <797> requirements. Nevertheless, the purpose is to cover the challenges experienced in delivering high-quality PN within hospitals in the United States and Europe, in order to share best practices and experiences more widely.
SUMMARY
Core issues regarding the PN process within an acute care setting are largely the same everywhere: There are ongoing pressures for greater efficiency, optimization, and also concurrent commitments to make PN safer for patients. Within Europe, in recent years, the use of market-authorized multi-chamber bags (MCBs) has increased greatly, mainly for safety, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency purposes. However, in the US, hospitals with low PN volumes may face particular challenges, as automated compounding equipment is often unaffordable in this setting and the variety of available MCBs is limited. This can result in the need to operate several PN systems in parallel, adding to the complexity of the PN use process. Ongoing PN quality and safety initiatives from US institutions with various PN volumes are presented. In the future, the availability of a greater selection of MCBs in the US may increase, leading to a reduction in dependence on compounded PN, as has been seen in many European countries.
CONCLUSION
The examples presented may encourage improvements in the safety and quality of PN within the acute care setting worldwide.
Topics: Humans; Europe; Hospitals; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition Solutions; Patient Safety; Pharmacy Service, Hospital; United States; Congresses as Topic
PubMed: 38869256
DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxae080 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2019Patients referred to intensive care units (ICU) require special care due to their life-threatening condition, diseases and, frequently, malnutrition. Critically ill...
Patients referred to intensive care units (ICU) require special care due to their life-threatening condition, diseases and, frequently, malnutrition. Critically ill patients manifest a range of typical physiological changes caused by predominantly catabolic reactions in the body. It is necessary to provide the patients with proper nutrition, for example by administering total parenteral nutrition (TPN). The addition of linezolid to TPN mixtures for patients treated for linezolid-sensitive infections may reduce the extent of vascular access handling, resulting in a diminished risk of unwanted catheter-related infections. The compatibility and stability studies were conducted of linezolid in parenteral nutrition mixtures of basic, high- and low-electrolytic, high- and low-energetic and immunomodulatory composition. Mixtures containing linezolid were stored at 4⁻6 °C and 25 °C with light protection and at 25 °C without light protection for 168 h. In order to evaluate changes in the concentration of linezolid a previously validated reversed-phase HPLC method with UV detection was used. It was found that linezolid was stable at 4⁻6 °C in the whole course of the study whereas at 25 °C it proved stable over a period of 24 h required for administration of parenteral nutrition mixtures. The TPN mixtures demonstrated compatibility with linezolid and suitable stability, which were not affected by time or storage conditions.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chemical Phenomena; Drug Stability; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Hydrolysis; Linezolid; Molecular Structure; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 30934964
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24071242 -
Nutrients Sep 2017Parenteral nutrition (PN) provides life-saving nutritional support in situations where caloric supply via the enteral route cannot cover the necessary needs of the... (Review)
Review
Parenteral nutrition (PN) provides life-saving nutritional support in situations where caloric supply via the enteral route cannot cover the necessary needs of the organism. However, it does have serious adverse effects, including parenteral nutrition-associated liver disease (PNALD). The development of liver injury associated with PN is multifactorial, including non-specific intestine inflammation, compromised intestinal permeability, and barrier function associated with increased bacterial translocation, primary and secondary cholangitis, cholelithiasis, short bowel syndrome, disturbance of hepatobiliary circulation, lack of enteral nutrition, shortage of some nutrients (proteins, essential fatty acids, choline, glycine, taurine, carnitine, etc.), and toxicity of components within the nutrition mixture itself (glucose, phytosterols, manganese, aluminium, etc.). Recently, an increasing number of studies have provided evidence that some of these factors are directly or indirectly associated with microbial dysbiosis in the intestine. In this review, we focus on PN-induced changes in the taxonomic and functional composition of the microbiome. We also discuss immune cell and microbial crosstalk during parenteral nutrition, and the implications for the onset and progression of PNALD. Finally, we provide an overview of recent advances in the therapeutic utilisation of pro- and prebiotics for the mitigation of PN-associated liver complications.
Topics: Animals; Chemical and Drug Induced Liver Injury; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Intestines; Parenteral Nutrition
PubMed: 28880224
DOI: 10.3390/nu9090987