Accuracy of Water Delivery in Enteral Nutrition Pumps.

BACKGROUND: Adequate delivery of both enteral formula and water in patients receiving enteral nutrition (EN) is critical. Pump accuracy has been identified as a factor impeding enteral formula delivery; however, rarely is enteral water delivery investigated. The purpose of this study was to explore accuracy of delivering 1 L of water by EN pumps using different flush volumes and hang heights. METHODS: Three EN pumps were used in vitro to flush 1 L of water at 50 mL every hour for 20 hours (50 mL, 20 times per day) and 500 mL every 4 hours for 8 hours (500 mL, 2 times per day) at 0 in. and 18 in. (or 45.72 cm) hang heights. Fifteen runs were conducted at each volume and hang height per pump. Actual delivered enteral water, remaining volume in enteral feeding bags, and volume reported per pump were recorded. RESULTS: Hang height of 18 in. delivered a mean 3.91% (95% CI, 3.25-4.57) more water than bags hung at 0 in. (P < .0005). When delivering water in 500 mL increments, 1.57% (95% CI, 0.92-2.23) more water was delivered than when delivered in 50 mL increments (P < .005). CONCLUSION: Appropriate hang height recommendations improve enteral water delivery in patients receiving EN. The most accurate setting was 500 mL at 18 in., resulting in accurate water delivery in 97.8% of runs, whereas 50 mL at 0 in. delivered accurately 17.8% of the time. Appropriate bag hang height and water delivery volume is critical to maintain hydration status of patients receiving EN.

ASPEN Consensus Recommendations for Refeeding Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: In the spring of 2017, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Parenteral Nutrition Safety Committee and the Clinical Practice Committee convened an interprofessional task force to develop consensus recommendations for identifying patients with or at risk for refeeding syndrome (RS) and for avoiding and managing the condition. This report provides narrative review and consensus recommendations in hospitalized adult and pediatric populations. METHODS: Because of the variation in definitions and methods reported in the literature, a consensus process was developed. Subgroups of authors investigated specific issues through literature review. Summaries were presented to the entire group for discussion via email and teleconferences. Each section was then compiled into a master document, several revisions of which were reviewed by the committee. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS: This group proposes a new clinical definition, and criteria for stratifying risk with treatment and screening strategies. The authors propose that RS diagnostic criteria be stratified as follows: a decrease in any 1, 2, or 3 of serum phosphorus, potassium, and/or magnesium levels by 10%-20% (mild), 20%-30% (moderate), or >30% and/or organ dysfunction resulting from a decrease in any of these and/or due to thiamin deficiency (severe), occurring within 5 days of reintroduction of calories. CONCLUSIONS: These consensus recommendations are intended to provide guidance regarding recognizing risk and identifying, stratifying, avoiding and managing RS. This consensus definition is additionally intended to be used as a basis for further research into the incidence, consequences, pathophysiology, avoidance, and treatment of RS.

Predictive equations for energy needs for the critically ill.

Nutrition may affect clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, and providing either more or fewer calories than the patient needs can adversely affect outcomes. Calorie need fluctuates substantially over the course of critical illness, and nutrition delivery is often influenced by: the risk of refeeding syndrome; a hypocaloric feeding regimen; lack of feeding access; intolerance of feeding; and feeding-delay for procedures. Lean body mass is the strongest determinant of resting energy expenditure, but age, sex, medications, and metabolic stress also influence the calorie requirement. Indirect calorimetry is the accepted standard for determining calorie requirement, but is unavailable or unaffordable in many centers. Moreover, indirect calorimetry is not infallible and care must be taken when interpreting the results. In the absence of calorimetry, clinicians use equations and clinical judgment to estimate calorie need. We reviewed 7 equations (American College of Chest Physicians, Harris-Benedict, Ireton-Jones 1992 and 1997, Penn State 1998 and 2003, Swinamer 1990) and their prediction accuracy. Understanding an equation's reference population and using the equation with similar patients are essential for the equation to perform similarly. Prediction accuracy among equations is rarely within 10% of the measured energy expenditure; however, in the absence of indirect calorimetry, a prediction equation is the best alternative.