Treatment of refractory shock with vitamin B12 : A narrative review.

High-dose vitamin B12 is a potential treatment for patients with vasodilatory shock that is refractory to other therapies. Vasodilatory shock is characterized by low blood pressure and low systemic vascular resistance. Nitric oxide and hydrogen sulfide, two potential targets of high-dose vitamin B12 given as hydroxocobalamin, facilitate this syndrome. This review explores the relationship between high-dose vitamin B12 and hemodynamic outcomes in adults with vasodilatory shock and provides an update on the literature since a 2019 review on this topic. A literature search of studies published in the past 5 years was conducted in the CINAHL, PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases in May 2023. After assessing for eligibility, eight studies met this review's inclusion criteria. Seven of the eight studies reported decreased vasopressor requirements for part or all of the study samples after receiving a hydroxocobalamin infusion. However, not all patients responded to hydroxocobalamin. These findings are limited by patient selection and differences in the timing of vasopressor requirement and blood pressure outcome assessments. The current evidence is promising as to whether vitamin B12 , given as a hydroxocobalamin infusion, may improve hemodynamic outcomes in vasodilatory shock, but the evidence is of low quality. The use of hydroxocobalamin to treat refractory, vasodilatory shock remains investigative. Larger randomized controlled trials are required to elucidate the role of vitamin B12 in treating refractory, vasodilatory shock, including in conjunction with other alternative therapies such as methylene blue and corticosteroids.

A Comparison of High and Usual Protein Dosing in Critically Ill Patients With Obesity: A Post Hoc Analysis of an International, Pragmatic, Single-Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Across guidelines, protein dosing for critically ill patients with obesity varies considerably. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether this population would benefit from higher doses of protein. DESIGN: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicenter, pragmatic, registry-based randomized trial. SETTING: Eighty-five adult ICUs across 16 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with obesity defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 ( n = 425). INTERVENTIONS: In the primary study, patients were randomized into a high-dose (≥ 2.2 g/kg/d) or usual-dose protein group (≤ 1.2 g/kg/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Protein intake was monitored for up to 28 days, and outcomes (time to discharge alive [TTDA], 60-d mortality, days of mechanical ventilation [MV], hospital, and ICU length of stay [LOS]) were recorded until 60 days post-randomization. Of the 1301 patients in the primary study, 425 had a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 . After adjusting for sites and covariates, we observed a nonsignificant slower rate of TTDA with higher protein that ruled out a clinically important benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05; p = 0.10). We found no evidence of difference in TTDA between protein groups when subgroups with different classes of obesity or patients with and without various nutritional and frailty risk variables were examined, even after the removal of patients with baseline acute kidney injury. Overall, 60-day mortality rates were 31.5% and 28.2% in the high protein and usual protein groups, respectively (risk difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 12.1; p = 0.46). Duration of MV and LOS in hospital and ICU were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with obesity, higher protein doses did not improve clinical outcomes, including those with higher nutritional and frailty risk.

The effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicentre, pragmatic, registry-based randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of low-quality evidence, international critical care nutrition guidelines recommend a wide range of protein doses. The effect of delivering high-dose protein during critical illness is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that a higher dose of protein provided to critically ill patients would improve their clinical outcomes. METHODS: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline. INTERPRETATION: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores. FUNDING: None.

Integration of patient-centered care in nutrition support decision-making: A case report.

Patient-centered care considers a patient's unique needs, values, preferences, and the psychosocial situation at the heart of decisions related to healthcare. Dietitians have reported several barriers to the practice of patient-centered care, including a lack of time and support and a perception that patients are unable to participate. This is meaningful as decisions regarding nutrition therapy, specifically in adult populations with cancer, influence patient morbidity and mortality and a patient's quality of life. Patient-centered care is associated with improved decision-making, patient-provider communication, and quality of life in patients with cancer. This case report discusses and applies patient-centered care in conjunction with the best available evidence for an adult patient with a history of head and neck cancer admitted to a critical care unit. Nutrition support clinicians are equipped to use a patient-centered and evidence-based approach to help patients navigate through nutrition therapy decisions that may influence both clinical and quality of life outcomes. Further research should be done to determine the association between patient-centered care and quality of life outcomes in nutrition support practice.