Assessment of refeeding syndrome definitions and 30-day mortality in critically ill adults: A comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are at high risk for refeeding syndrome (RFS), yet there is uncertainty regarding how RFS should be operationalized in the ICU. We evaluated different definitions for RFS and tested how they associated with patient-centered outcomes in the ICU. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparison study. Patients age ≥18 years were eligible if they were newly initiated on enteral feeding while hospitalized in the ICU. Eight definitions for RFS were operationalized, including that from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), all based on electrolyte levels from immediately before until up to 5 days after the initiation of enteral nutrition. Patients were followed for death or for ICU-free days, a measure of healthcare utilization. RESULTS: In all, 2123 patients were identified, including 406 (19.1%) who died within 30 days of ICU admission and 1717 (80.9%) who did not. Prevalence of RFS varied from 1.5% to 88% (ASPEN definition) depending on the RFS definition used. The excess risk for death associated with RFS varied from 33% to 92% across definitions. The development of RFS based on the ASPEN definition was associated with a greater decrease in ICU-free days compared with other definitions, but the relationship was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Eight definitions for RFS were evaluated, none of which showed strong associations with death or ICU-free days. It may be challenging to achieve a standardized definition for RFS that is based on electrolyte values and predicts mortality or ICU-free days.

Ethical Framework for Nutrition Support Resource Allocation During Shortages: Lessons From COVID-19.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted all aspects of our population. The "Troubling Trichotomy" of what can be done technologically, what should be done ethically, and what must be done legally is a reality during these unusual circumstances. Recent ethical considerations regarding allocation of scarce resources, such as mechanical ventilators, have been proposed. These can apply to other disciplines such as nutrition support, although decisions regarding nutrition support have a diminished potential for devastating outcomes. The principal values and goals leading to an ethical framework for a uniform, fair, and objective approach are reviewed in this article, with a focus on nutrition support. Some historical aspects of shortages in nutrition supplies and products during normal circumstances, as well as others during national crises, are outlined. The development and implementation of protocols using a scoring system seems best addressed by multidisciplinary ethics and triage committees with synergistic but disparate functions. Triage committees should alleviate the burdens of unilateral decisions by the healthcare team caring for patients. The treating team should make every attempt to have patients and the public at large update or execute/develop advance directives. Legal considerations, as the third component of the Troubling Trichotomy, are of some concern when rationing care. The likelihood that criminal or civil charges could be brought against individual healthcare professionals or institutions can be minimized, if fair protocols are uniformly applied and deliberations well documented.