Trial of the route of early nutritional support in critically ill adults.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty exists about the most effective route for delivery of early nutritional support in critically ill adults. We hypothesized that delivery through the parenteral route is superior to that through the enteral route. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, randomized trial involving adults with an unplanned admission to one of 33 English intensive care units. We randomly assigned patients who could be fed through either the parenteral or the enteral route to a delivery route, with nutritional support initiated within 36 hours after admission and continued for up to 5 days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. RESULTS: We enrolled 2400 patients; 2388 (99.5%) were included in the analysis (1191 in the parenteral group and 1197 in the enteral group). By 30 days, 393 of 1188 patients (33.1%) in the parenteral group and 409 of 1195 patients (34.2%) in the enteral group had died (relative risk in parenteral group, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.08; P=0.57). There were significant reductions in the parenteral group, as compared with the enteral group, in rates of hypoglycemia (44 patients [3.7%] vs. 74 patients [6.2%]; P=0.006) and vomiting (100 patients [8.4%] vs. 194 patients [16.2%]; P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the parenteral group and the enteral group in the mean number of treated infectious complications (0.22 vs. 0.21; P=0.72), 90-day mortality (442 of 1184 patients [37.3%] vs. 464 of 1188 patients [39.1%], P=0.40), in rates of 14 other secondary outcomes, or in rates of adverse events. Caloric intake was similar in the two groups, with the target intake not achieved in most patients. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in 30-day mortality associated with the route of delivery of early nutritional support in critically ill adults. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research; CALORIES Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN17386141.).

Exploring fasting practices for critical care patients - A web-based survey of UK intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition delivery in the critically ill is frequently interrupted for surgical and airway procedures to avoid aspiration of stomach contents. Recurrent fasting leads to under delivery of enteral nutrition and this underfeeding is associated with worse outcomes. International fasting recommendations do not provide guidance for intubated patients receiving enteral nutrition. This study aimed to gain a detailed perspective of UK critical care fasting practices. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to 232 UK intensive care units consisting of questions relating to fasting practices, presence of guidelines, average fasting times for common procedures and dietitian time per intensive care unit bed. RESULTS: A total of 176 intensive care units responded. Only 20% of units had guidelines and respondents stated that they were not consistently adhered to (mean compliance 66%). Units with greater dietetic involvement were more likely to have guidelines (p = 0.04). Fasting times were shorter for abdominal surgery (p = 0.002), non-abdominal surgery (p = 0.016) and radiology (p = 0.015) if a guideline was present. Fasting for extubation and tracheostomy was similar irrespective of the presence of a guideline. Considerable variation in fasting times was reported, usually due to inconsistencies in clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: This survey of national practice demonstrates that fasting times are varied and inconsistent, which may lead to under-delivery of enteral nutrition. More dietetic input was associated with increased likelihood of a fasting guideline.

Optimising enteral nutrition in critically ill patients by reducing fasting times.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition is currently the route of choice for feeding critically ill patients with a functioning gut but delivery is commonly associated with disruptions. Common reasons for interruptions to enteral nutrition are fasting for diagnostic procedures, surgery and airway management. These interruptions result in significant calorie deficits that are associated with increased complications. We aimed to describe the specific interruptions in our patient group and the impact they have on nutrition delivery before and after implementation of a fasting guideline. METHODS: A service improvement project was undertaken over two different time points, 1 year apart, to evaluate the effectiveness of a fasting guideline in a general/trauma ICU in a London teaching hospital. RESULTS: There were 62 interruptions to enteral nutrition delivery with the first data collection and 64 in the second. Prolonged fasting before and after surgery and airway procedures were initially identified as the two most important causes of delays. Implementation of the fasting guideline resulted in statistical and clinical improvements in reducing fasting for airways procedures. The calorie deficit also statistically and clinically decreased as a result of the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the introduction of a simple guideline stipulating reduced fasting times before ICU procedures can result in less time lost in feed interruptions and improved enteral nutrition delivery.

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early nutritional support via the parenteral versus the enteral route in critically ill patients (CALORIES).

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is a common problem in critically ill patients in UK NHS critical care units. Early nutritional support is therefore recommended to address deficiencies in nutritional state and related disorders in metabolism. However, evidence is conflicting regarding the optimum route (parenteral or enteral) of delivery. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route on mortality at 30 days and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. Secondary objectives were to compare the route of early nutritional support on duration of organ support; infectious and non-infectious complications; critical care unit and acute hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at critical care unit and acute hospital discharge, at 90 days and 1 year; survival to 90 days and 1 year; nutritional and health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation. SETTING: Adult general critical care units in 33 NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: 2400 eligible patients. INTERVENTIONS: Five days of early nutritional support delivered via the parenteral (n = 1200) and enteral (n = 1200) route. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (INB) (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year. RESULTS: By 30 days, 393 of 1188 (33.1%) patients assigned to receive early nutritional support via the parenteral route and 409 of 1195 (34.2%) assigned to the enteral route had died [p = 0.57; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.65 to 4.94; relative risk 0.97 (0.86 to 1.08)]. At 1 year, INB for the parenteral route compared with the enteral route was negative at -£1320 (95% CI -£3709 to £1069). The probability that early nutritional support via the parenteral route is more cost-effective - given the data - is < 20%. The proportion of patients in the parenteral group who experienced episodes of hypoglycaemia (p = 0.006) and of vomiting (p < 0.001) was significantly lower than in the enteral group. There were no significant differences in the 15 other secondary outcomes and no significant interactions with pre-specified subgroups. LIMITATIONS: Blinding of nutritional support was deemed to be impractical and, although the primary outcome was objective, some secondary outcomes, although defined and objectively assessed, may have been more vulnerable to observer bias. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days for early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route among adults admitted to critical care units in England. On average, costs were higher for the parenteral route, which, combined with similar survival and quality of life, resulted in negative INBs at 1 year. FUTURE WORK: Nutritional support is a complex combination of timing, dose, duration, delivery and type, all of which may affect outcomes and costs. Conflicting evidence remains regarding optimum provision to critically ill patients. There is a need to utilise rigorous consensus methods to establish future priorities for basic and clinical research in this area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17386141. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Provision of nutritional support to those experiencing complications following bariatric surgery.

This review details the practicalities of providing nutrition support to obese patients who experience complications following bariatric surgery and highlights some of the nutritional challenges encountered by this group of patients. Bariatric surgery to treat morbid obesity has significantly increased internationally over the past decade with hospital admissions rising annually. The gastric bypass is currently the most commonly performed procedure. The complication rate can be up to 16%, with a considerable proportion having nutritional implications. The treatment can involve avoidance of oral diet and nutrition support, i.e. enteral or parenteral nutrition. Opposition to nutrition support can be encountered. It is useful to clarify the aims of nutrition support, these being: the avoidance of overfeeding and its consequences, preservation of lean body mass and promotion of healing. Evidence suggests that hypoenergic nutrition is not harmful and may actually be beneficial. There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimum method to predict the nutritional requirements in the obese acutely unwell patient. The literature suggests that the predicted equations are fairly accurate compared to measured energy expenditure in free living obese patients before and after bariatric surgery. However, these findings cannot be directly applied to those obese patients experiencing complications of bariatric surgery, who will be acutely unwell exhibiting inflammatory response. It is therefore necessary to refer to the literature on energy expenditure in hospitalized obese patients, to help guide practice. More research examining the energy and protein requirements of obese patients needing nutrition support following bariatric surgery is urgently required.

Bariatric support line: a prospective study of support line activity.

In this prospective study, we examine the workload of the North London Obesity Surgery Service Bariatric telephone support line (BTSL) and its effects on service provision. Over a 3-month period (June to August 2008), a prospective record was kept of all calls, who they were from, whether the patient was presurgery or postsurgery, the type of procedure planned or undertaken, the nature of the enquiry, and the time taken to answer the query. Seventy-five (72%) calls were related to patients who were postsurgery and 29 (28%) presurgery. Patients scheduled for or having undergone Roux-en-Y gastric bypass accounted for 46 (44%) calls; 24 (23%) were preprocedure and 22 (21%) postprocedure. Patients scheduled for or having undergone gastric banding accounted for 56 (54%) calls; five (0.5%) were preprocedure and 51 (49%) postprocedure. Patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy accounted for two (<1%) calls. Both calls were postprocedure. The reason for the support line enquiry was psychological support in 15 (14%) patients, questions postsurgery in 26 (25%), general enquiries in 27 (26%), and clinical enquiries in 36 (36%). This study of the BTSL has allowed us to identify areas of need within our bariatric population and improve the service we deliver. The changes we have made should lead to a better use of the team's time, greater patient compliance, and satisfaction as well as reduced complaints and litigation.