Characteristics and feeding intolerance in critically ill adult patients receiving peptide-based enteral nutrition: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients who experience gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance and hyperglycemia (or glucose intolerance) may not achieve appropriate caloric requirements and experience poor outcomes. The aim was to examine patient characteristics, disease severity, and enteral nutrition (EN) formula use in relation to feeding intolerance and healthcare resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional design using real-world data from PINC AI™ Healthcare Database, 2015-2019 was used. Critically ill hospitalized adults who required ≥3 days of 100% whey peptide-based EN, other peptide-based diets, or intact-protein standard and diabetic EN formulas were included. Primary outcomes were enteral feeding intolerance, including GI intolerance and hyperglycemia. Pairwise comparisons of other peptide-based and standard intact-protein groups with 100% whey-peptide were completed. Associations between EN group with GI intolerance and hyperglycemia, respectively, were evaluated via multivariable logistic regressions. RESULTS: Across 67 US hospitals, 19,679 inpatients (3242,100% whey-peptide, 3121 other peptide-based, and 13,316 standard intact-protein) were included. The 100% whey-peptide group had higher severity of illness and frequencies of comorbidities compared with other peptide-based and standard intact-protein groups. Hospital length of stay, intensive care unit stay, and 30-day readmission were similar across peptide-based cohorts. After controlling for demographic, visit, and severity characteristics, odds of GI intolerance were 18% higher for the other peptide-based group and 15% higher for the standard intact-protein group compared with the 100% whey-peptide group (each P < 0.03). In secondary analysis, odds of hyperglycemia were 81% higher for the other peptide-based group compared with the subgroup of very high-protein/low carbohydrate 100% whey-peptide (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Lower GI intolerance and greater glycemic control were associated with the use of 100% whey-peptide formulas relative to other formulas. Appropriate and optimal delivery of EN using specialized peptide-based formulas is a strategy to minimize feeding intolerance and benefit critically ill patients.

Healthcare Resource Utilization and Cost Comparisons of High-Protein Enteral Nutrition Formulas Used in Critically Ill Patients.

Background: High-protein enteral nutrition is advised for patients who are critically ill. Options include immunonutrition formulas of various compositions and standard high-protein formulas (StdHP). Additional research is needed on the health economic value of immunonutrition in a broad cohort of severely ill hospitalized patients. Objective: The study goal was to compare healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and cost between immunonutrition and StdHP using real-world evidence from a large US administrative database. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was designed using the PINC AI™ Healthcare Database from 2015 to 2019. IMPACT® Peptide 1.5 (IP) was compared with Pivot® 1.5 (PC), and StdHP formulas. Inclusion criteria comprised patients age 18+ with at least 1 day's stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) and at least 3 out of 5 consecutive days of enteral nutrition. Pairwise comparisons of demographics, clinical characteristics, HCRU, and costs were conducted between groups. Multivariable regression was used to assess total hospital cost per day associated with enteral nutrition cohort. Results: A total of 5752 patients were identified across 27 hospitals. Overall, a median 7 days of enteral nutrition was received over a 16-day hospital and 10-day ICU stay. Median total and daily hospital costs were lower for IP vs PC ($71 196 vs $80 696, P<.001) and ($4208 vs $4373, P=.019), with each higher than StdHP. However, after controlling for covariates such as mortality risk, surgery, and discharge disposition, average total hospital cost per day associated with IP use was 24% lower than PC, and 12% lower than StdHP (P<.001). Readmissions within 30 days were less frequent for patients receiving IP compared with PC (P<.02) and StdHP (P<.001). Discussion: Choice of high-protein enteral nutrition for patients in the ICU has implications for HCRU and daily hospital costs. Considering these correlations is important when comparing formula ingredients and per unit costs. Among the enteral nutrition products studied, IP emerged as the most cost-saving option, with lower adjusted hospital cost per day than PC or StdHP. Conclusions: Using a select immunonutrition formula for critically ill patients may provide overall cost savings for the healthcare system.