RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Children who are critically ill are often reliant on enteral and oral nutrition support. However, there is limited evidence to guide "what" to prescribe, and current practice is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to describe enteral nutrition prescription in children ≤2 years of age in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The secondary objectives were to describe oral nutrition support practices and factors associated with the use of increased energy and protein density nutrition support. METHODS: Children ≤2 years of age admitted to participating PICUs over a 2-week period in June 2021 were enrolled. Data were collected on PICU admission days 1 to 7, 14, 21, and 28 on the mode of nutrition, enteral and oral nutrition support prescription, and dietitian intervention. RESULTS: Eighty-four children were included (49 [58%] male; 79 [94%] ≤1 year of age). Enteral nutrition was administered to 79 (94%) children (with expressed breast milk in 45 [57%]). Forty-three children received formula as enteral nutrition. Increased energy and protein density formulas were provided to 14 (33%) children enterally, with concentrated standard infant formula powder being the most common (5 [12%]). Among children offered oral intake (22; 26%), three (14%) received oral nutrition support. Children who received increased energy and protein density enteral nutrition were more likely to receive dietitian intervention (P = 0.002). CONCLUSION: In children ≤2 years of age admitted to PICU, expressed breast milk was provided to half of those requiring enteral nutrition and oral nutrition support prescription was infrequent. One third of children receiving formula via enteral nutrition received an increased energy and protein density feed, and this was strongly associated with dietitian intervention.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Recommendations to facilitate evidence-based nutrition provision for critically ill children exist and indicate the importance of nutrition in this population. Despite these recommendations, it is currently unknown how well Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) are equipped to provide nutrition care. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this project were to describe the dietitian and nutrition-related practices and resources in ANZ PICUs. METHODS: A clinician survey was completed as a component of an observational study across nine ANZ PICUs in June 2021. The online survey comprised 31 questions. Data points included reporting on dietetics resourcing, local feeding-related guidelines and algorithms, nutrition screening and assessment practices, anthropometry practices, and indirect calorimetry (IC) device availability and local technical expertise. Data are presented as frequency (%), mean (standard deviation), or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: Survey responses were received from all nine participating sites. Dietetics staffing per available PICU bed ranged from 0.01 to 0.07 full-time equivalent (median: 0.03 [interquartile range: 0.02-0.04]). Nutrition screening was established in three (33%) units, all of which used the Paediatric Nutrition Screening Tool. Dietitians consulted all appropriate patients (or where capacity allowed) in six (66%) units and on a request or referral basis only in three (33%) units. All units possessed a local feeding guideline or algorithm. An IC device was available in two (22%) PICUs and was used in one of these units. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the dietitian and nutrition-related practices and resources of ANZ PICUs. Areas for potential improvement include dietetics full-time equivalent, routine nutrition assessment, and access to IC.
Asunto(s)
Nutricionistas , Niño , Humanos , Nueva Zelanda , Australia , Estado Nutricional , Unidades de Cuidado Intensivo PediátricoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The main aim of this study was to describe nutrition provision in Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), including mode of nutrition and adequacy of enteral nutrition (EN) to PICU day 28. Secondary aims were to determine the proportion of children undergoing dietetics assessment, the average time to this intervention, and the methods for estimation of energy and protein requirements. METHODS: This observational study was conducted in all ANZ tertiary-affiliated specialist PICUs. All children ≤18 y of age admitted to the PICU over a 2-wk period and remaining for ≥48 h were included. Data were collected on days 1 to 7, 14, 21, and 28 (unless discharged prior). Data points included oral intake, EN and parenteral nutrition support, estimated energy and protein adequacy, and dietetics assessment details. RESULTS: We enrolled 141 children, of which 79 were boys (56%) and 84 were <2 y of age (60%). Thirty children (73%) received solely EN on day 7 with documented energy and protein targets for 22 (73%). Of these children, 14 (64%) received <75% of their estimated requirements. A dietetics assessment was provided to 80 children (57%), and was significantly higher in those remaining in the PICU beyond the median length of stay (41% in patients staying ≤4.6 d versus 72% in those staying >4.6 d; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study of nutrition provision across ANZ PICUs identified important areas for improvement, particularly in EN adequacy and nutrition assessment. Further research to optimize nutrition provision in this setting is urgently needed.