Nutrition therapy during noninvasive ventilation: oral or enteral?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical care nutrition guidelines primarily focus on patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, yet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is an increasingly common intervention. The optimal route of nutrition delivery in patients receiving NIV has not been established. This review aims to describe the implications of NIV on the route of feeding prescribed. RECENT FINDINGS: Five small, mostly observational, studies have quantified energy or protein intake in patients receiving NIV in critical care, which demonstrate intake to be poor. No study has assessed the impact of feeding route on outcomes. The predominant route of feeding observed is oral intake, yet nutrition intake via this route is lower than that from enteral or parenteral nutrition. Barriers to oral intake include fasting for intubation, the inability to remove NIV apparatus to eat, breathlessness, fatigue and poor appetite, while barriers to enteral nutrition include the impact of the naso-enteric tube on the mask seal and potential aspiration. SUMMARY: Until evidence to support the optimal route of feeding is developed, patient safety should be the key driver of route selection, followed by the ability to achieve nutrition targets, perhaps utilizing a combination of routes to overcome barriers to nutrition delivery.

Chest radiography is a poor predictor of respiratory symptoms and functional impairment in survivors of severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: A standardised approach to assessing COVID-19 survivors has not been established, largely due to the paucity of data on medium- and long-term sequelae. Interval chest radiography is recommended following community-acquired pneumonia; however, its utility in monitoring recovery from COVID-19 pneumonia remains unclear. METHODS: This was a prospective single-centre observational cohort study. Patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (admission duration ≥48 h and oxygen requirement ≥40% or critical care admission) underwent face-to-face assessment at 4-6 weeks post-discharge. The primary outcome was radiological resolution of COVID-19 pneumonitis (Radiographic Assessment of Lung Oedema score <5). Secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, symptom questionnaires, mental health screening (Trauma Screening Questionnaire, seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder assessment and nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire) and physiological testing (4-m gait speed (4MGS) and 1-min Sit-to-Stand (STS) tests). RESULTS: 119 patients were assessed between June 3, 2020 and July 2, 2020 at median (interquartile range (IQR)) 61 (51-67) days post-discharge: mean±sd age 58.7±14.4 years, median (IQR) body mass index 30.0 (25.9-35.2) kg·m-2, 62% male and 70% ethnic minority. Despite radiographic resolution of pulmonary infiltrates in 87%, modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea (breathlessness) scale grades were above pre-COVID-19 baseline in 44%, and patients reported persistent fatigue (68%), sleep disturbance (57%) and breathlessness (32%). Screening thresholds were breached for post-traumatic stress disorder (25%), anxiety (22%) and depression (18%). 4MGS was slow (<0.8 m·s-1) in 38% and 35% desaturated by ≥4% during the STS test. Of 56 thoracic computed tomography scans performed, 75% demonstrated COVID-19-related interstitial and/or airways disease. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent symptoms, adverse mental health outcomes and physiological impairment are common 2 months after severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Follow-up chest radiography is a poor marker of recovery; therefore, holistic face-to-face assessment is recommended to facilitate early recognition and management of post-COVID-19 sequelae.