-
Nutrients Apr 2022Preterm neonates display a high risk of postnatal malnutrition, especially at very low gestational ages, because nutritional stores are less in younger preterm infants.... (Review)
Review
Preterm neonates display a high risk of postnatal malnutrition, especially at very low gestational ages, because nutritional stores are less in younger preterm infants. For this reason nutrition and growth in early life play a pivotal role in the establishment of the long-term health of premature infants. Nutritional care for preterm neonates remains a challenge in clinical practice. According to the recent and latest recommendations from ESPGHAN, at birth, water intake of 70-80 mL/kg/day is suggested, progressively increasing to 150 mL/kg/day by the end of the first week of life, along with a calorie intake of 120 kcal/kg/day and a minimum protein intake of 2.5-3 g/kg/day. Regarding glucose intake, an infusion rate of 3-5 mg/kg/min is recommended, but VLBW and ELBW preterm neonates may require up to 12 mg/kg/min. In preterm infants, lipid emulsions can be started immediately after birth at a dosage of 0.5-1 g/kg/day. However, some authors have recently shown that it is not always possible to achieve optimal and recommended nutrition, due to the complexity of the daily management of premature infants, especially if extremely preterm. It would be desirable if multicenter randomized controlled trials were designed to explore the effect of early nutrition and growth on long-term health.
Topics: Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Premature; Infant, Premature, Diseases; Infant, Very Low Birth Weight; Micronutrients; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total
PubMed: 35406142
DOI: 10.3390/nu14071530 -
Critical Care (London, England) Feb 2020Nutrition therapy during critical illness has been a focus of recent research, with a rapid increase in publications accompanied by two updated international clinical... (Review)
Review
Nutrition therapy during critical illness has been a focus of recent research, with a rapid increase in publications accompanied by two updated international clinical guidelines. However, the translation of evidence into practice is challenging due to the continually evolving, often conflicting trial findings and guideline recommendations. This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis and interpretation of the adult critical care nutrition literature, with a particular focus on continuing practice gaps and areas with new data, to assist clinicians in making practical, yet evidence-based decisions regarding nutrition management during the different stages of critical illness.
Topics: Adult; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Nutritional Status; Nutritional Support; Parenteral Nutrition
PubMed: 32019607
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-2739-4 -
Critical Care (London, England) Apr 2016Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as the preferred route for early nutrition therapy in critically ill adults over parenteral nutrition (PN). A recent large randomized controlled trial (RCT) showed no outcome differences between the two routes. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of the route of nutrition (EN versus PN) on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.
METHODS
An electronic search from 1980 to 2016 was performed identifying relevant RCTs. Individual trial data were abstracted and methodological quality of included trials scored independently by two reviewers. The primary outcome was overall mortality and secondary outcomes included infectious complications, length of stay (LOS) and mechanical ventilation. Subgroup analyses were performed to examine the treatment effect by dissimilar caloric intakes, year of publication and trial methodology. We performed a test of asymmetry to assess for the presence of publication bias.
RESULTS
A total of 18 RCTs studying 3347 patients met inclusion criteria. Median methodological score was 7 (range, 2-12). No effect on overall mortality was found (1.04, 95 % CI 0.82, 1.33, P = 0.75, heterogeneity I(2) = 11 %). EN compared to PN was associated with a significant reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.64, 95 % CI 0.48, 0.87, P = 0.004, I(2) = 47 %). This was more pronounced in the subgroup of RCTs where the PN group received significantly more calories (RR 0.55, 95 % CI 0.37, 0.82, P = 0.003, I(2) = 0 %), while no effect was seen in trials where EN and PN groups had a similar caloric intake (RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.80, 1.10, P = 0.44, I(2) = 0 %; test for subgroup differences, P = 0.003). Year of publication and methodological quality did not influence these findings; however, a publication bias may be present as the test of asymmetry was significant (P = 0.003). EN was associated with significant reduction in ICU LOS (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.80, 95 % CI -1.23, -0.37, P = 0.0003, I(2) = 0 %) while no significant differences in hospital LOS and mechanical ventilation were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
In critically ill patients, the use of EN as compared to PN has no effect on overall mortality but decreases infectious complications and ICU LOS. This may be explained by the benefit of reduced macronutrient intake rather than the enteral route itself.
Topics: Adult; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Nutritional Status; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27129307
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1298-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Critically ill people are at increased risk of malnutrition. Acute and chronic illness, trauma and inflammation induce stress-related catabolism, and drug-induced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Critically ill people are at increased risk of malnutrition. Acute and chronic illness, trauma and inflammation induce stress-related catabolism, and drug-induced adverse effects may reduce appetite or increase nausea and vomiting. In addition, patient management in the intensive care unit (ICU) may also interrupt feeding routines. Methods to deliver nutritional requirements include provision of enteral nutrition (EN), or parenteral nutrition (PN), or a combination of both (EN and PN). However, each method is problematic. This review aimed to determine the route of delivery that optimizes uptake of nutrition.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of enteral versus parenteral methods of nutrition, and the effects of enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral methods of nutrition, among critically ill adults, in terms of mortality, number of ICU-free days up to day 28, and adverse events.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase on 3 October 2017. We searched clinical trials registries and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies comparing EN given to adults in the ICU versus PN or versus EN and PN. We included participants that were trauma, emergency, and postsurgical patients in the ICU.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 25 studies with 8816 participants; 23 studies were RCTs and two were quasi-randomized studies. All included participants were critically ill in the ICU with a wide range of diagnoses; mechanical ventilation status between study participants varied. We identified 11 studies awaiting classification for which we were unable to assess eligibility, and two ongoing studies.Seventeen studies compared EN versus PN, six compared EN versus EN and PN, two were multi-arm studies comparing EN versus PN versus EN and PN. Most studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately. Most studies reported no methods to blind personnel or outcome assessors to nutrition groups; one study used adequate methods to reduce risk of performance bias.Enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutritionWe found that one feeding route rather than the other (EN or PN) may make little or no difference to mortality in hospital (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.77; 361 participants; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.13; 3148 participants; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether one feeding route rather than the other reduces mortality within 90 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 2461 participants; 3 studies). One study reported mortality at one to four months and we did not combine this in the analysis; we reported this data as mortality within 180 days and it is uncertain whether EN or PN affects the number of deaths within 180 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.97; 46 participants).No studies reported number of ICU-free days up to day 28, and one study reported number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 and it is uncertain whether one feeding route rather than the other reduces the number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 because the certainty of the evidence is very low (mean difference, inverse variance, 0.00, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.97; 2388 participants).We combined data for adverse events reported by more than one study. It is uncertain whether EN or PN affects aspiration because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.03; 2437 participants; 2 studies), and we found that one feeding route rather than the other may make little or no difference to pneumonia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 415 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We found that EN may reduce sepsis (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 361 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain whether PN reduces vomiting because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.16; 2525 participants; 3 studies).Enteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition and parenteral nutritionWe found that one feeding regimen rather than another (EN or combined EN or PN) may make little or no difference to mortality in hospital (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; 5111 participants; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and at 90 days (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.18; 4760 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether combined EN and PN leads to fewer deaths at 30 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.54; 409 participants; 3 studies). It is uncertain whether one feeding regimen rather than another reduces mortality within 180 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.55; 120 participants; 1 study).No studies reported number of ICU-free days or ventilator-free days up to day 28. It is uncertain whether either feeding method reduces pneumonia because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.15; 205 participants; 2 studies). No studies reported aspiration, sepsis, or vomiting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to determine whether EN is better or worse than PN, or than combined EN and PN for mortality in hospital, at 90 days and at 180 days, and on the number of ventilator-free days and adverse events. We found fewer deaths at 30 days when studies gave combined EN and PN, and reduced sepsis for EN rather than PN. We found no studies that reported number of ICU-free days up to day 28. Certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is either low or very low. The 11 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
Topics: Adult; Cause of Death; Combined Modality Therapy; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Malnutrition; Parenteral Nutrition; Pneumonia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Vomiting
PubMed: 29883514
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012276.pub2 -
The International Journal of Eating... Mar 2016Given the importance of weight restoration for recovery in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN), we examined approaches to refeeding in adolescents and adults across... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Given the importance of weight restoration for recovery in patients with anorexia nervosa (AN), we examined approaches to refeeding in adolescents and adults across treatment settings.
METHODS
Systematic review of PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Clinical Trials databases (1960-2015) using terms refeeding, weight restoration, hypophosphatemia, anorexia nervosa, anorexia, and anorexic.
RESULTS
Of 948 screened abstracts, 27 met these inclusion criteria: participants had AN; reproducible refeeding approach; weight gain, hypophosphatemia or cognitive/behavioral outcomes. Twenty-six studies (96%) were observational/prospective or retrospective and performed in hospital. Twelve studies published since 2010 examined approaches starting with higher calories than currently recommended (≥1400 kcal/d). The evidence supports 8 conclusions: 1) In mildly and moderately malnourished patients, lower calorie refeeding is too conservative; 2) Both meal-based approaches or combined nasogastric+meals can administer higher calories; 3) Higher calorie refeeding has not been associated with increased risk for the refeeding syndrome under close medical monitoring with electrolyte correction; 4) In severely malnourished inpatients, there is insufficient evidence to change the current standard of care; 5) Parenteral nutrition is not recommended; 6) Nutrient compositions within recommended ranges are appropriate; 7) More research is needed in non-hospital settings; 8) The long-term impact of different approaches is unknown;
DISCUSSION
Findings support higher calorie approaches to refeeding in mildly and moderately malnourished patients under close medical monitoring, however the safety, long-term outcomes, and feasibility outside of hospital have not been established. Further research is also needed on refeeding approaches in severely malnourished patients, methods of delivery, nutrient compositions and treatment settings.
Topics: Anorexia Nervosa; Female; Humans; Male; Parenteral Nutrition; Prospective Studies; Refeeding Syndrome; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 26661289
DOI: 10.1002/eat.22482 -
Clinical Nutrition (Edinburgh, Scotland) Apr 2015Intestinal failure (IF) is not included in the list of PubMed Mesh terms, as failure is the term describing a state of non functioning of other organs, and as such is...
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Intestinal failure (IF) is not included in the list of PubMed Mesh terms, as failure is the term describing a state of non functioning of other organs, and as such is not well recognized. No scientific society has yet devised a formal definition and classification of IF. The European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism guideline committee endorsed its "home artificial nutrition and chronic IF" and "acute IF" special interest groups to write recommendations on these issues.
METHODS
After a Medline Search, in December 2013, for "intestinal failure" and "review"[Publication Type], the project was developed using the Delphi round methodology. The final consensus was reached on March 2014, after 5 Delphi rounds and two live meetings.
RESULTS
The recommendations comprise the definition of IF, a functional and a pathophysiological classification for both acute and chronic IF and a clinical classification of chronic IF. IF was defined as "the reduction of gut function below the minimum necessary for the absorption of macronutrients and/or water and electrolytes, such that intravenous supplementation is required to maintain health and/or growth".
CONCLUSIONS
This formal definition and classification of IF, will facilitate communication and cooperation among professionals in clinical practice, organization and management, and research.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adult; Chronic Disease; Europe; Humans; Intestinal Absorption; Intestinal Diseases; Parenteral Nutrition; Societies, Scientific
PubMed: 25311444
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.08.017 -
Nutrients May 2023Short-bowel syndrome (SBS) in pediatric age is defined as a malabsorptive state, resulting from congenital malformations, significant small intestine surgical resection... (Review)
Review
Short-bowel syndrome (SBS) in pediatric age is defined as a malabsorptive state, resulting from congenital malformations, significant small intestine surgical resection or disease-associated loss of absorption. SBS is the leading cause of intestinal failure in children and the underlying cause in 50% of patients on home parental nutrition. It is a life-altering and life-threatening disease due to the inability of the residual intestinal function to maintain nutritional homeostasis of protein, fluid, electrolyte or micronutrient without parenteral or enteral supplementation. The use of parenteral nutrition (PN) has improved medical care in SBS, decreasing mortality and improving the overall prognosis. However, the long-term use of PN is associated with the incidence of many complications, including liver disease and catheter-associated malfunction and bloodstream infections (CRBSIs). This manuscript is a narrative review of the current available evidence on the management of SBS in the pediatric population, focusing on prognostic factors and outcome. The literature review showed that in recent years, the standardization of management has demonstrated to improve the quality of life in these complex patients. Moreover, the development of knowledge in clinical practice has led to a reduction in mortality and morbidity. Diagnostic and therapeutic decisions should be made by a multidisciplinary team that includes neonatologists, pediatric surgeons, gastroenterologists, pediatricians, nutritionists and nurses. A significant improvement in prognosis can occur through the careful monitoring of nutritional status, avoiding dependence on PN and favoring an early introduction of enteral nutrition, and through the prevention, diagnosis and aggressive treatment of CRSBIs and SIBO. Multicenter initiatives, such as research consortium or data registries, are mandatory in order to personalize the management of these patients, improve their quality of life and reduce the cost of care.
Topics: Child; Humans; Quality of Life; Short Bowel Syndrome; Intestine, Small; Intestines; Parenteral Nutrition; Multicenter Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37242224
DOI: 10.3390/nu15102341 -
Nutrients Sep 2020Enteral nutrition (EN) is considered the first feeding route for critically ill patients. However, adverse effects such as gastrointestinal complications limit its... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Effect of Supplemental Parenteral Nutrition Versus Enteral Nutrition Alone on Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Enteral nutrition (EN) is considered the first feeding route for critically ill patients. However, adverse effects such as gastrointestinal complications limit its optimal provision, leading to inadequate energy and protein intake. We compared the clinical outcomes of supplemental parenteral nutrition added to EN (SPN + EN) and EN alone in critically ill adults. Electronic databases restricted to full-text randomized controlled trials available in the English language and published from January 1990 to January 2019 were searched. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Jadad scale, and the meta-analysis was conducted using the MedCalc software. A total of five studies were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Compared to EN alone, SPN + EN decreased the risk of nosocomial infections (relative risk (RR) = 0.733, = 0.032) and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR = 0.569, = 0.030). No significant differences were observed between SPN + EN and EN in the length of hospital stay, hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. In conclusion, when enteral feeding fails to fulfill the energy requirements in critically ill adult patients, SPN may be beneficial as it helps in decreasing nosocomial infections and ICU mortality, in addition to increasing energy and protein intakes with no negative effects on other clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Combined Modality Therapy; Critical Care Outcomes; Critical Illness; Cross Infection; Dietary Supplements; Enteral Nutrition; Female; Hospital Mortality; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Length of Stay; Male; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32998412
DOI: 10.3390/nu12102968 -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Oct 2021Nutritional support is very important in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, this study aimed to investigate the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Nutritional support is very important in the treatment of severe acute pancreatitis, this study aimed to investigate the effect of total parenteral nutrition (TPN) and enteral nutrition (TEN) on the prognosis of patients with acute pancreatitis.
METHODS
The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Ovid were searched using the keywords acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition to obtain the reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published after 2000. After screening the articles according to the inclusion criteria, risk of bias of the included literatures was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. The software RevMan 5.3.5 was used for analysis and the creation of a forest plot and funnel plot.
RESULTS
A total of 488 literatures were preliminarily searched in this study, from which 10 articles were included into the final quantitative analysis, involving a total of 699 participants. A total of 6 literatures (n=329 participants) reported the infection rate indicators. The obtained statistic value [odds ratio (OR) =0.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.10 to 0.62] showed TEN had less infection rate that TPN (P=0.003). A total of 8 studies (654 participants) reported the incidence rate indicators of multiple organ failure rate indicator, the obtained statistic value (OR =0.50, 95% CI: 0.24 to 1.08) showed no statistical difference between TEN and TPN (P>0.05). A total of 7 studies (550 participants) reported the mortality indicators. The obtained statistic value (OR =0.59, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.94) showed TEN had less mortality than TPN (P=0.03). A total of 3 studies reported the length of hospital stay indicators. The obtained statistic value [mean difference (MD) -4.18, 95% CI: -5.07 to -3.30] showed the length of hospital stay for TEN was shorter that TPN (P<0.001).
DISCUSSION
Compared with TPN, TEN can reduce the incidence of infection, reduce the development of multiple organ failure, reduce mortality, and shorten the length of hospital stay in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). However, attention should be paid to prevent the occurrence of complications during the implementation of nutritional intervention.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Pancreatitis; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Prognosis
PubMed: 34763439
DOI: 10.21037/apm-21-2469 -
American Journal of Health-system... Jun 2024Some diseases require that patients receive parenteral nutrition (PN) over a prolonged time period. Long-term administration of PN can further complicate an already... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Some diseases require that patients receive parenteral nutrition (PN) over a prolonged time period. Long-term administration of PN can further complicate an already complex therapy, posing additional risk of potential complications. This article is based on presentations and discussions held at the International Safety and Quality of PN Summit, providing insights into aspects of home PN (HPN) and examples of good HPN practice.
SUMMARY
One critical step in the HPN process is when patients transition from a hospital to a home setting, and vice versa. Generally, electronic PN ordering is not feasible in an HPN setting, leading to potential difficulties in communication and coordination. HPN requires that patients (or their home caregivers) administer PN, and thus their education and competency are crucial. Likewise, the choice of PN formulation is of great importance. For example, using more modern intravenous lipid emulsions containing medium-chain triglycerides, olive oil, and/or fish oil can provide benefits in terms of liver function during long-term HPN. Internationally, there are wide variations in delivery of HPN, with compounded PN dominating in some countries while others make greater use of market-authorized multichamber bags (MCBs). Patient-related factors, institutional considerations, and the availability of different MCB formulations, are also contributing factors guiding formulation and delivery system preferences.
CONCLUSION
Education and communication remain key components of a successful HPN process. The information shared here may help to motivate efforts to improve HPN processes and to consider the often-differing perspectives of patients and their healthcare professionals.
Topics: Humans; Parenteral Nutrition, Home; Time Factors
PubMed: 38527076
DOI: 10.1093/ajhp/zxae081