Penn State equation versus indirect calorimetry for nutritional assessment in patients with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional assessment can be challenging in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), and indirect calorimetry may be a more suitable method than predictive equations. We compared the Penn State equation versus the gold standard of indirect calorimetry for the nutritional assessment of patients with TBI, and quantified the difference between nutritional requirements and actual patient intake. METHODS: This single-centre, prospective cohort study included patients with moderate (Glasgow Coma Scale score 9-12) and severe (Glasgow Coma Scale score 3-8) TBI admitted to the Montreal General Hospital intensive care unit (ICU) between June 2018 and March 2019. Penn State equation estimates and indirect calorimetry measurements were collected, and actual intake was drawn from medical records. We compared the 2 assessment methods using a Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients with TBI (moderate in 7 and severe in 16) were included in the study. Overall, there was a moderate positive correlation between the Penn State equation estimate and indirect calorimetry readings (correlation coefficient 0.457, p = 0.03); however, the correlation was weaker in severe TBI (correlation coefficient 0.174, p = 0.5) than in moderate TBI (correlation coefficient 0.929, p = 0.003). When compared to indirect calorimetry assessment, patients received 5.4% (p = 0.5) of required intake on the first day and 43.9% (p = 0.8) of required daily intake throughout their ICU stay. CONCLUSION: Patients with moderate or severe TBI in the ICU received less than 50% of their nutritional requirements. The difference between the Penn State equation and indirect calorimetry assessments was most noticeable for patients with severe TBI, which indicates that indirect calorimetry may be a more suitable tool for assessment of nutritional needs in this population.

Content analysis of bowel protocols for the management of constipation in adult critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: Alterations in bowel habits are common during critical illness, and bowel protocols are gaining acceptance. Our objective was to characterize bowel protocols in a cross-sectional analysis of ICUs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We engaged 44 adult ICUs and performed content analysis of bowel protocols, addressing initiation criteria, medications incorporated, medication escalation, discontinuation criteria, stool assessment methods, and protocol contraindications. RESULTS: Bowel protocols operated in 33/44 ICUs (79.5%). The commonest medications were senna (81.0%) and bisacodyl (75.6%). Less common agents were sodium phosphate (45.9%), glycerin (43.2%), docusate sodium (43.2%), polyethylene glycol 3350 (37.8%), lactulose (29.7%), sodium citrate (16.2%), milk of magnesia (13.5%) and mineral oil (16.2%). Bowel protocols were activated by nurses (62.8%) based on initiation criteria [no bowel movement for 24-96 h (35.1%), opioid use (18.9%), "at risk for constipation" (13.5%), stool on digital rectal exam (10.8%), feeding initiation (10.8%), and ICU admission (8.1%)]. Laxative escalation criteria included time from last bowel movement (59.4%), opioid use (18.9%) and no stool on digital rectal exam (10.8%), while 15 (40.5%) included diarrhea as a discontinuation criterion. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel protocols have variable initiation, escalation, and discontinuation criteria incorporating different classes of laxatives, reflecting unclear evidence about optimal bowel management strategies in ICU.