-
The Journal of Hospital Infection Dec 2016As lipid in parenteral nutrition (PN) purportedly enhances microbial growth, recommendations limit infusion of lipid PN (or lipid emulsion) from a single container to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
As lipid in parenteral nutrition (PN) purportedly enhances microbial growth, recommendations limit infusion of lipid PN (or lipid emulsion) from a single container to 24h (48h for lipid-free PN). However, the associated evidence base is ambiguous.
AIM
To examine factors affecting microbial growth in PN.
METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analyses examined effects of nutrients on microbial growth in PN infusates over a 48-h period using the growth ratio {GR=log[colony-forming units (cfu)/mL at 48h/cfu/mL at time zero]}.
FINDINGS
Factors influencing GR in PN included glucose, microbial species, temperature, osmolarity, presence of vitamins, trace elements and lipid, and amino acid profile. Using unmatched datasets (N=306), a general linear model found that lipid inclusion in PN represented 3.3% of the variability, which was less than that due to glucose concentration (5.8%), microbial species (35.3%) and microbe-infusate interaction (4.4%). Using matched datasets (N=38 pairs), lipid inclusion in PN represented 5.4% of the variability (P=0.076), which was less than that due to glucose concentration (8.5%; P=0.025), microbial species (75.5%; P<0.001) and microbe-infusate interaction (13.3%; P=0.382). Using meta-analyses of matched datasets, the presence of lipid in PN at fixed glucose concentrations did not significantly increase GR of Candida albicans, Escherichia coli or Staphylococcus epidermidis (P=0.352, P=0.025 and P=0.494, respectively; overall P=0.175).
CONCLUSION
Lipid inclusion in PN is only one of several factors that may influence microbial growth in PN. Any recommendations about the duration of PN infusion from a single container should account for all these factors, and should be weighted according to microbial species likely to contaminate PN.
Topics: Bacteria; Candida albicans; Emulsions; Humans; Lipids; Parenteral Nutrition
PubMed: 27765342
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2016.08.026 -
JPEN. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral... Mar 2021Lack of reporting consistency is common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care nutrition. This impacts synthesis and interpretation and may misinform... (Review)
Review
Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating an Enteral or Parenteral Nutrition Intervention in Critical Illness According to the CONSORT Statement: A Systematic Review and Recommendation of Minimum Standard Reporting Criteria.
Lack of reporting consistency is common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in critical care nutrition. This impacts synthesis and interpretation and may misinform clinical practice. The objective was to evaluate reporting of parallel-group RCTs of enteral or parenteral nutrition interventions in critically ill adults against the recommendations in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 guidelines and a priori-defined nutrition criteria. A systematic search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL was conducted to identify RCTs published from January 2011 to February 14, 2020. The primary outcome was the percentage of CONSORT criteria "completely met" (a score of 1) from all included studies (out of a total possible score of 37). Secondary outcomes included the percentage of CONSORT criteria that were "partially" or "not met" and the percentage of a priori-defined nutrition criteria that were "completely," "partially," or "not met" (adjusted to reflect criteria applicable to the paper). Data are presented as mean (standard deviation). Comparisons of normally distributed continuous data were made using a t-test (P < .05). Of 18,969 articles identified, 56 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 60% (19%) of the eligible CONSORT criteria were "completely met," 20% (9%) "partially met," and 20% (15%) "not met." For the nutrition criteria, 41% (20%) of the eligible criteria were "completely met," 25% (14%) "partially met," and 34% (17%) "not met." Reporting against CONSORT guidelines was variable and often incomplete in relation to important a priori-defined nutrition variables.
Topics: Adult; Critical Illness; Humans; Parenteral Nutrition; Parenteral Nutrition, Total; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reference Standards
PubMed: 33119130
DOI: 10.1002/jpen.2038 -
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Aug 2020Nutritional interventions may improve quality of life, morbidity and mortality in gastric cancer (GC) patients. A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Nutritional interventions may improve quality of life, morbidity and mortality in gastric cancer (GC) patients. A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluated different nutritional strategies - oral nutritional supplements (ONS), enteral nutrition (EN), enteral immunonutrition (EIN), parenteral nutrition (PN) and nutritional counselling - in GC patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess the effects of these nutritional interventions on nutritional status of GC patients undergoing gastrectomy and/or chemotherapy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science and Scopus databases from inception to March 2020, based on fixed inclusion and exclusion criteria. Effect sizes were estimated with mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) and heterogeneity was assessed by measuring inconsistency (I) based on chi-squared test. Pooled analyses and quality assessment were performed with Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
A total of 25 RCTs were identified, including ONS (n = 7), EN (n = 6), PN (n = 4), EIN (n = 5) and nutrition counselling (n = 3) interventions. Ten RCTs with 1838 patients were deemed eligible for pooled analyses. Body weight loss was found lower in ONS group versus control group (MD 0.77; 95% CI -0.02-1.56; p = 0.05). PN and EIN studies did not assess body weight, while all nutrition counselling studies did not show significant differences (p > 0.05). Twenty-three out of 25 studies evaluated serum protein levels - albumin (ALB) and/or prealbumin (PA) and/or transferrin (TF). ALB levels did not significantly differ (p > 0.05) in 4 ONS studies. Significant improvements of PA levels from baseline to postoperative day (POD) ≥ 7 were shown in EN compared with PN groups (MD 19.90; 95% CI 10.09-29.70; p < 0.0001). Compared with EN, EIN interventions showed no significant improvements of ALB, PA and TF levels (p > 0.05) from baseline to POD ≥ 7. Amino-acid enriched PN showed no significant improvements of ALB, PA and TF levels (p > 0.05) while the effect of omega-3 enriched PN was debated. Only three studies out of 25 evaluated total fat mass and skeletal muscle mass and no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between ONS versus control groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Whereas our meta-analysis showed promising results from ONS and EN interventions the optimal delivery of GC nutritional support and nutritional status assessment are still unclear. Moreover, the majority of studies did not consider muscle mass and strength as nutritional parameters. This review highlights the crucial need to close this research gap, with high-quality, large RCTs, adopting effective nutritional assessment tools to evaluate the appropriateness of nutrition strategies.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Nutritional Status; Parenteral Nutrition; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stomach Neoplasms
PubMed: 32690170
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2020.05.007 -
Transplantation and Cellular Therapy Feb 2021Nutritional support for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) has been widely debated. Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Nutritional support for patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) has been widely debated. Enteral nutrition (EN) is recommended as first-line nutritional support by the main international guidelines. However, these recommendations are based on weak evidence, and there is wide variability in the types of nutritional support among transplantation centers, with the majority providing parenteral nutrition (PN) instead of EN. Here we provide an up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing EN and PN for nutritional support during the neutropenic period after allo-HSCT. The literature search strategy identified 13 papers, of which 10 compared clinical transplantation outcomes, 2 compared gut microbiota (GM) compositions, and 1 compared systemic metabolic profiles. For the meta-analysis, among the 10 clinical studies, 8 studies in which 2 groups were compared were selected: in 1 group, EN was provided as primary nutritional support in the neutropenic phase after allo-HSCT with or without the addition of PN (EN group), whereas in the other group, only PN was provided as nutritional support. The incidence rates of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) (relative risk [RR], 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.86; P = .0007), aGVHD grade III-IV (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.64; P < .0001), and gut aGVHD (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66; P < .0001) were lower in the EN group than in the PN group. No differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to the incidence of severe oral mucositis (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.09; P = .46) or overall survival at day +100 (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.21; P = .29). Other variables were too heterogeneous to perform quantitative analyses. The results of the meta-analysis showed that EN reduced the incidence of aGVHD, specifically grade III-IV and gut aGVHD. This result should prompt improved efforts to implement EN as first-line nutritional support in patients undergoing allo-HSCT. Considering the emerging evidence regarding the association between GM dysbiosis and aGVHD onset, we speculate that this protective effect could be attributed to the improved gut eubiosis observed in enterally fed patients. Further studies are warranted to better address the relationship between the GM composition, aGVHD, and the nutritional administration route during HSCT.
Topics: Enteral Nutrition; Graft vs Host Disease; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Humans; Nutritional Support; Parenteral Nutrition
PubMed: 33830034
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtct.2020.11.006 -
Medicine Oct 2018The increased mortality rate and other poor prognosis make malnutrition a serious issue for adult critically ill patients in intensive care unit care. This study was to... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIM
The increased mortality rate and other poor prognosis make malnutrition a serious issue for adult critically ill patients in intensive care unit care. This study was to compare outcomes between combined parenteral and enteral nutrition and enteral nutrition alone for adult critically ill patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The PubMed (June 30, 2018), EMBASE (June 30, 2018), and Cochrane library databases (June 30, 2018) were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of comparing combined PN and EN with EN alone were eligible. Relative risks (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs involving 5360 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with combined PN and EN, fewer respiratory infections (RR, 1.13 [95% CI 1.01-1.25]) and shorter length of days at hospital (MD, 1.83 [95% CI 1.05-2.62]) were observed in EN alone group. And no significant differences were found on hospital mortality (RR, 0.91 [95% CI 0.74-1.12]), length of days in ICU (MD, -0.23 [95% CI -1.79 to 1.32]), duration of ventilatory support (MD, -1.10 [95% CI -3.15 to 0.94]), albumin (MD, -0.04 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.21]), or prealbumin (MD, -0.77 [95% CI -0.22 to 1.75]) between theses 2 groups.
CONCLUSION
Receiving EN alone decreased the respiratory infections and length of days at hospital for critically ill patients. Combined PN and EN did not add up the potential risk from PN and EN on hospital mortality, length of days in ICU, duration of ventilatory support, albumin, and prealbumin.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Malnutrition; Models, Statistical; Parenteral Nutrition; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30313021
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000011874 -
JPEN. Journal of Parenteral and Enteral... Nov 2018Hypersensitivity to the components of parenteral nutrition (PN) is a rare but important complication of PN. We performed a systematic review of hypersensitivity to PN to...
Hypersensitivity to the components of parenteral nutrition (PN) is a rare but important complication of PN. We performed a systematic review of hypersensitivity to PN to enable us to build an approach to the individual patient who presents with PN hypersensitivity. A systematic literature search was performed in Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science using terms for "hypersensitivity" AND "parenteral nutrition" and relevant synonyms. A total of 28 articles were analyzed, and 33 hypersensitivities to PN or components of PN were reported in these 28 articles. Reports of hypersensitivity and subsequent conclusions were based on the clinical observations made by each reporting author. These reactions were evenly split between pediatric and adult patients. Hypersensitivity to PN occurred on day of starting PN in 60.6% patients and after that time in 36.3% patients (range: 1-21 days). Of the hypersensitivities that occurred on day 1 of PN, 70% occurred in the first 30 minutes of initiation of PN. Cutaneous manifestations were the most common, followed by anaphylaxis, respiratory symptoms, and hemodynamic instability. The components most frequently identified as allergens were intravenous fat emulsion (48.4%), multivitamin solution (33.3%), and amino acid solution (9%). Based on this review, an algorithm was created to guide the practitioner on management of PN after the occurrence of such a reaction.
Topics: Allergens; Amino Acids; Disease Management; Fat Emulsions, Intravenous; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Parenteral Nutrition; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Vitamins
PubMed: 29761928
DOI: 10.1002/jpen.1169 -
Annals of Intensive Care 2014Supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) is used in a step-up approach when full enteral support is contraindicated or fails to reach caloric targets. Recent nutrition... (Review)
Review
Supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) is used in a step-up approach when full enteral support is contraindicated or fails to reach caloric targets. Recent nutrition guidelines present divergent advices regarding timing of SPN in critically ill patients ranging from early SPN (<48 h after admission; EPN) to postponing initiation of SPN until day 8 after Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission (LPN). This systematic review summarizes results of prospective studies among adult ICU patients addressing the best timing of (supplemental) parenteral nutrition (S)PN. A structured PubMed search was conducted to identify eligible articles. Articles were screened and selected using predetermined criteria and appraised for relevance and validity. After critical appraisal, four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and two prospective observational studies remained. One RCT found a higher percentage of alive discharge from the ICU at day 8 in the LPN group compared to EPN group (p = 0.007) but no differences in ICU and in-hospital mortality. None of the other RCTs found differences in ICU or in-hospital mortality rates. Contradicting or divergent results on other secondary outcomes were found for ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, infection rates, nutrition targets, duration of mechanical ventilation, glucose control, duration of renal replacement therapy, muscle wasting and fat loss. Although the heterogeneity in quality and design of relevant studies precludes firm conclusions, it is reasonable to assume that in adult critically ill patients, there are no clinically relevant benefits of EPN compared with LPN with respect to morbidity or mortality end points, when full enteral support is contraindicated or fails to reach caloric targets. However, considering that infectious morbidity and resolution of organ failure may be negatively affected through mechanisms not yet clearly understood and acquisition costs of parenteral nutrition are higher, the early administration of parenteral nutrition cannot be recommended.
PubMed: 25593747
DOI: 10.1186/s13613-014-0031-y -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Mar 2024To evaluate and summarize the evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients and provide reference for clinical... (Review)
Review
AIM
To evaluate and summarize the evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients and provide reference for clinical practice.
DESIGN
This study was an evidence summary followed by the evidence summary reporting standard of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing.
METHODS
Current literatures were systematically searched for the best evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients. Literature types included clinical guidelines, best practice information sheets, expert consensuses, systematic reviews, evidence summaries and cohort studies.
DATA SOURCES
UpToDate, BMJ Best Practice, Joanna Briggs Institute, Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Sinomed, Web of Science, Yi Maitong Guidelines Network, DynaMed, MEDLINE, CNKI, WanFang database, Chinese Medical Journal Full-text Database, European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism website, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition website were searched from January 2012 to April 2023.
RESULTS
We finally identified 18 articles that had high-quality results. We summarized the 24 pieces of best evidence from these articles, covering five aspects: screening and assessment of the risk of enteral nutritional tolerance; formulation of enteral nutrition preparations; enteral nutritional feeding implementation; feeding intolerance symptom prevention and management; and multidisciplinary management. Of these pieces of evidence, 19 were 'strong' and 5 were 'weak', 7 pieces of evidence were recommended in level one and 4 pieces of evidence were recommended in level two.
CONCLUSION
The following 24 pieces of evidence for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients were finally recommended. However, as these evidences came from different countries, relevant factors such as the clinical environment should be evaluated before application. Future studies should focus on more specific symptoms of feeding intolerance and more targeted prevention design applications.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE
The clinical medical staffs are recommended to take evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of standardized enteral nutrition to improve patient outcomes and decrease gastrointestinal intolerance in critically ill patients.
IMPACT
The management of enteral nutrition feeding intolerance has always been a challenge and difficulty in critically ill patients. This study summarizes 24 pieces of the best evidence for prevention and management of enteral nutrition feeding intolerance in critically ill patients. Following and implementing these 24 pieces of evidence is beneficial to the prevention and management of feeding intolerance in clinical practice. The 24 pieces of evidence include five aspects, including screening and assessment of the risk of enteral nutritional tolerance, formulation of enteral nutrition preparations, enteral nutritional feeding implementation, feeding intolerance symptom prevention and management and multidisciplinary management. These five aspects constitute a good implementation process. Screening and assessment of enteral nutritional tolerance throughout intervention are important guarantees for developing a feasible nutrition program in critically ill patients. This study will be benefit to global medical workers in the nutritional management of critically ill patients.
REPORTING METHOD
This evidence summary followed the evidence summary reporting specifications of Fudan University Center for Evidence-based Nursing, which were based on the methodological process for the summary of the evidence produced by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The reporting specifications include problem establishment, literature retrieval, literature screening, literature evaluation, the summary and grading of evidence and the formation of practical suggestions. This study was based on the evidence summary reporting specifications of the Fudan University Center for the Evidence-based Nursing, the register name is 'Best evidence summary for prevention and management of enteral feeding intolerance in critically ill patients', the registration number is 'ES20231823'.
Topics: Humans; Infant, Newborn; Enteral Nutrition; Critical Illness; Nutritional Status; Critical Care; Parenteral Nutrition
PubMed: 37994227
DOI: 10.1111/jocn.16934 -
Critical Care (London, England) Nov 2020Omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acid (FA)-containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with significant improvements in patient outcomes compared with standard PN regimens... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Omega-3 (ω-3) fatty acid (FA)-containing parenteral nutrition (PN) is associated with significant improvements in patient outcomes compared with standard PN regimens without ω-3 FA lipid emulsions. Here, we evaluate the impact of ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN on clinical outcomes and costs in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients using a meta-analysis and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of a hospital operating in five European countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) and the US.
METHODS
We present a pharmacoeconomic simulation based on a systematic literature review with meta-analysis. Clinical outcomes and costs comparing ω-3 FA-containing PN with standard PN were evaluated in adult ICU patients eligible to receive PN covering at least 70% of their total energy requirements and in the subgroup of critically ill ICU patients (mean ICU stay > 48 h). The meta-analysis with the co-primary outcomes of infection rate and mortality rate was based on randomized controlled trial data retrieved via a systematic literature review; resulting efficacy data were subsequently employed in country-specific cost-effectiveness analyses.
RESULTS
In adult ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN versus standard PN was associated with significant reductions in the relative risk (RR) of infection (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45, 0.86; p = 0.004), hospital length of stay (HLOS) (- 3.05 days; 95% CI - 5.03, - 1.07; p = 0.003) and ICU length of stay (LOS) (- 1.89 days; 95% CI - 3.33, - 0.45; p = 0.01). In critically ill ICU patients, ω-3 FA-containing PN was associated with similar reductions in infection rates (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46, 0.94; p = 0.02), HLOS (- 3.98 days; 95% CI - 6.90, - 1.06; p = 0.008) and ICU LOS (- 2.14 days; 95% CI - 3.89, - 0.40; p = 0.02). Overall hospital episode costs were reduced in all six countries using ω-3 FA-containing PN compared to standard PN, ranging from €-3156 ± 1404 in Spain to €-9586 ± 4157 in the US.
CONCLUSION
These analyses demonstrate that ω-3 FA-containing PN is associated with statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient outcomes. Its use is also predicted to yield cost savings compared to standard PN, rendering ω-3 FA-containing PN an attractive cost-saving alternative across different health care systems.
STUDY REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42019129311.
Topics: Cost-Benefit Analysis; Critical Illness; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; France; Germany; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Italy; Length of Stay; Parenteral Nutrition; Spain; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; United States
PubMed: 33143750
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-03356-w -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jun 2019Hyperglycemia is a common occurrence in hospitalized patients receiving parenteral and/or enteral nutrition. Although there are several approaches to manage... (Review)
Review
Hyperglycemia is a common occurrence in hospitalized patients receiving parenteral and/or enteral nutrition. Although there are several approaches to manage hyperglycemia, there is no consensus on the best practice. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify records (published or registered between April 1999 and April 2019) investigating strategies to manage glucose control in adults receiving parenteral and/or enteral nutrition whilst hospitalized in noncritical care units. A total of 15 completed studies comprising 1170 patients were identified, of which 11 were clinical trials and four observational studies. Diabetes management strategies entailed adaptations of nutritional regimens in four studies, while the remainder assessed different insulin regimens and administration routes. Diabetes-specific nutritional regimens that reduced glycemic excursions, as well as algorithm-driven insulin delivery approaches that allowed for flexible glucose-responsive insulin dosing, were both effective in improving glycemic control. However, the assessed studies were, in general, of limited quality, and we see a clear need for future rigorous studies to establish standards of care for patients with hyperglycemia receiving nutrition support.
PubMed: 31261760
DOI: 10.3390/jcm8070935