Personalized nutrition therapy in critical care: 10 expert recommendations.

Personalization of ICU nutrition is essential to future of critical care. Recommendations from American/European guidelines and practice suggestions incorporating recent literature are presented. Low-dose enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN) can be started within 48 h of admission. While EN is preferred route of delivery, new data highlight PN can be given safely without increased risk; thus, when early EN is not feasible, provision of isocaloric PN is effective and results in similar outcomes. Indirect calorimetry (IC) measurement of energy expenditure (EE) is recommended by both European/American guidelines after stabilization post-ICU admission. Below-measured EE (~ 70%) targets should be used during early phase and increased to match EE later in stay. Low-dose protein delivery can be used early (~ D1-2) (< 0.8 g/kg/d) and progressed to ≥ 1.2 g/kg/d as patients stabilize, with consideration of avoiding higher protein in unstable patients and in acute kidney injury not on CRRT. Intermittent-feeding schedules hold promise for further research. Clinicians must be aware of delivered energy/protein and what percentage of targets delivered nutrition represents. Computerized nutrition monitoring systems/platforms have become widely available. In patients at risk of micronutrient/vitamin losses (i.e., CRRT), evaluation of micronutrient levels should be considered post-ICU days 5-7 with repletion of deficiencies where indicated. In future, we hope use of muscle monitors such as ultrasound, CT scan, and/or BIA will be utilized to assess nutrition risk and monitor response to nutrition. Use of specialized anabolic nutrients such as HMB, creatine, and leucine to improve strength/muscle mass is promising in other populations and deserves future study. In post-ICU setting, continued use of IC measurement and other muscle measures should be considered to guide nutrition. Research on using rehabilitation interventions such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to guide post-ICU exercise/rehabilitation prescription and using anabolic agents such as testosterone/oxandrolone to promote post-ICU recovery is needed.

Obesity and critical care nutrition: current practice gaps and directions for future research.

BACKGROUND: This review has been developed following a panel discussion with an international group of experts in the care of patients with obesity in the critical care setting and focuses on current best practices in malnutrition screening and assessment, estimation of energy needs for patients with obesity, the risks and management of sarcopenic obesity, the value of tailored nutrition recommendations, and the emerging role of immunonutrition. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) increasingly present with overweight and obesity that require individualized nutrition considerations due to underlying comorbidities, immunological factors such as inflammation, and changes in energy expenditure and other aspects of metabolism. While research continues to accumulate, important knowledge gaps persist in recognizing and managing the complex nutritional needs in ICU patients with obesity. Available malnutrition screening and assessment tools are limited in patients with obesity due to a lack of validation and heterogeneous factors impacting nutrition status in this population. Estimations of energy and protein demands are also complex in patients with obesity and may include estimations based upon ideal, actual, or adjusted body weight. Evidence is still sparse on the role of immunonutrition in patients with obesity, but the presence of inflammation that impacts immune function may suggest a role for these nutrients in hemodynamically stable ICU patients. Educational efforts are needed for all clinicians who care for complex cases of critically ill patients with obesity, with a focus on strategies for optimal nutrition and the consideration of issues such as weight stigma and bias impacting the delivery of care. CONCLUSIONS: Current nutritional strategies for these patients should be undertaken with a focus on individualized care that considers the whole person, including the possibility of preexisting comorbidities, altered metabolism, and chronic stigma, which may impact the provision of nutritional care. Additional research should focus on the applicability of current guidelines and evidence for nutrition therapy in populations with obesity, especially in the setting of critical illness.

Methodological Rigor and Transparency in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Care in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review Using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX Tools.

Background: To evaluate the methodological quality of (1) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that inform nutrition care in critically ill adults using the AGREE II tool and (2) CPG recommendations for determining energy expenditure using the AGREE-REX tool. Methods: CPGs by a professional society or academic group, intended to guide nutrition care in critically ill adults, that used a systematic literature search and rated the evidence were included. Four databases and grey literature were searched from January 2011 to 19 January 2022. Five investigators assessed the methodological quality of CPGs and recommendations specific to energy expenditure determination. Scaled domain scores were calculated for AGREE II and a scaled total score for AGREE-REX. Data are presented as medians (interquartile range). Results: Eleven CPGs were included. Highest scoring domains for AGREE II were clarity of presentation (82% [76-87%]) and scope and purpose (78% [66-83%]). Lowest scoring domains were applicability (37% [32-42%]) and stakeholder involvement (46% [33-51%]). Eight (73%) CPGs provided recommendations relating to energy expenditure determination; scores were low overall (37% [36-40%]) and across individual domains. Conclusions: Nutrition CPGs for critically ill patients are developed using systematic methods but lack engagement with key stakeholders and guidance to support application. The quality of energy expenditure determination recommendations is low.

Nutrition before, during and after critical illness.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review describes considerations preintensive care unit (ICU), within ICU and in the post-ICU period regarding nutrition management and the current state of the literature base informing clinical care. RECENT FINDINGS: Within ICU, studies have focussed on the first 5-7 days of illness in mechanically ventilated patients who are heterogeneous and with minimal consideration to premorbid nutrition state. Many evidence gaps in the period within ICU remain, with the major ones being the amount of protein to provide and the impact of longer-term nutrition interventions. Personalised nutrition and nutrition in the post-ICU period are becoming key areas of focus. SUMMARY: Nutrition for the critically ill patient should not be viewed in isolated time periods; what happens before, during and after ICU is likely important to the overall recovery trajectory. It is critical that the impact of nutrition on clinical and functional outcomes across hospitalisation is investigated in specific groups and using interventions in ways that are biologically plausible to impact. Areas that show promise for the future of critical care nutrition include interventions delivered for a longer duration and inclusion of oral nutrition support, individualised nutrition regimes, and use of emerging bedside body composition techniques to identify patients at nutritional risk.

Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for Intensive Nutrition Therapy comparEd to usual care iN criTically ill adults (INTENT): a phase II randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: It is plausible that a longer duration of nutrition intervention may have a greater impact on clinical and patient-centred outcomes. The Intensive Nutrition care Therapy comparEd to usual care iN criTically ill adults (INTENT) trial will determine if a whole hospital nutrition intervention is feasible and will deliver more total energy compared with usual care in critically ill patients with at least one organ system failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prospective, multicentre, unblinded, parallel-group, phase II randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in 23 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients with at least one organ failure who have been in intensive care unit (ICU) for 72-120 hours and meet all of the inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria will be randomised to receive either intensive or usual nutrition care. INTENT started recruitment in October 2018 and a sample size of 240 participants is anticipated to be recruited in 2022. The study period is from randomisation to hospital discharge or study day 28, whichever occurs first, and the primary outcome is daily energy delivery from nutrition therapy. Secondary outcomes include daily energy and protein delivery during ICU and in the post-ICU period, duration of ventilation, ventilator-free days, total bloodstream infection rate and length of hospital stay. All other outcomes are considered tertiary and results will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received in Australia (Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/101) and Human Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Territory Department of Health (2019-3372)) and New Zealand (Northern A Health and Disability Ethics Committee (18/NTA/222). Results will be disseminated in an international peer-reviewed journal(s), at scientific meetings and via social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03292237.

Quantifying Response to Nutrition Therapy During Critical Illness: Implications for Clinical Practice and Research? A Narrative Review.

Critical illness causes substantial muscle loss that adversely impacts recovery and health-related quality of life. Treatments are therefore needed that reduce mortality and/or improve the quality of survivorship. The purpose of this Review is to describe both patient-centered and surrogate outcomes that quantify responses to nutrition therapy in critically ill patients. The use of these outcomes in randomized clinical trials will be described and the strengths and limitations of these outcomes detailed. Outcomes used to quantify the response of nutrition therapy must have a plausible mechanistic relationship to nutrition therapy and either be an accepted measure for the quality of survivorship or highly likely to lead to improvements in survivorship. This Review identified that previous trials have utilized diverse outcomes. The variety of outcomes observed is probably due to a lack of consensus as to the most appropriate surrogate outcomes to quantify response to nutrition therapy during research or clinical practice. Recent studies have used, with some success, measures of muscle mass to evaluate and monitor nutrition interventions administered to critically ill patients.

Nutrition therapy in critical illness: a review of the literature for clinicians.

Nutrition therapy during critical illness has been a focus of recent research, with a rapid increase in publications accompanied by two updated international clinical guidelines. However, the translation of evidence into practice is challenging due to the continually evolving, often conflicting trial findings and guideline recommendations. This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive synthesis and interpretation of the adult critical care nutrition literature, with a particular focus on continuing practice gaps and areas with new data, to assist clinicians in making practical, yet evidence-based decisions regarding nutrition management during the different stages of critical illness.

Nutrition intake in the post-ICU hospitalization period.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The care of critically ill patients has evolved over recent years, resulting in significant reductions in mortality in developed countries; sometimes with prolonged issues with recovery. Nutrition research has focused on the early, acute period of critical illness, until more recently, where the post-ICU hospitalization period in critical care survivors has become a focus for nutrition rehabilitation. In this period, nutrition rehabilitation may be a vital component of recovery. RECENT FINDINGS: Overall, oral nutrition is the most common mode of nutrition provision in the post-ICU period. Compared with oral intake alone, calorie and protein requirements can be better met with the addition of oral supplements and/or enteral nutrition to oral intake. However, calorie and protein intake remains below predicted targets in the post-ICU hospitalization period. Achieving nutrition targets are complex and multifactorial, but can primarily be grouped into three main areas: patient factors; clinician factors; and system factors. SUMMARY: A nutrition intervention in the post-ICU hospitalization period may provide an opportunity to improve survival and functional recovery. However, there are multiple barriers to the delivery of calculated nutrition requirements in this period, a limited understanding of how this can be improved and how this translates into clinical benefit.

What Happens to Nutrition Intake in the Post-Intensive Care Unit Hospitalization Period? An Observational Cohort Study in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about nutrition intake and energy requirements in the post-intensive care unit (ICU) hospitalization period in critically ill patients. We aimed to describe energy and protein intake, and determine the feasibility of measuring energy expenditure during the post-ICU hospitalization period in critically ill adults. METHODS: This is a nested cohort study within a randomized controlled trial in critically ill patients. After discharge from ICU, energy and protein intake was quantified periodically and indirect calorimetry attempted. Data are presented as n (%), mean (SD), and median (interquartile range [IQR]). RESULTS: Thirty-two patients were studied in the post-ICU hospitalization period, and 12 had indirect calorimetry. Mean age and BMI was 56 (18) years and 30 (8) kg/m2 , respectively, 75% were male, and the median estimated energy and protein requirement were 2000 [1650-2550] kcal and 112 [84-129] g, respectively. Oral nutrition either alone (n = 124 days, 55%) or in combination with enteral nutrition (n = 96 days, 42%) was the predominant mode. Over 227 total days in the post-ICU hospitalization period, a median [IQR] of 1238 [869-1813] kcal and 60 [35-89.5] g of protein was received from nutrition therapy. In the 12 patients who had indirect calorimetry, the median measured daily energy requirement was 1982 [1843-2345] kcal and daily energy deficit was -95 [-1050 to 347] kcal compared with the measured energy requirement. CONCLUSIONS: Energy and protein intake in the post-ICU hospitalization period was less than estimated and measured energy requirements. Oral nutrition provided alone was the most common mode of nutrition therapy.

Malnutrition screening in outpatients receiving hyperbaric oxygen therapy: an opportunity for improvement?

Outpatients who receive hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) may represent a group at significant risk of malnutrition owing to the underlying conditions that are often treated with HBOT (e.g., non-healing diabetic wounds and radiation-induced skin injury). In this issue, See and colleagues provide new, preliminary evidence of the prevalence of malnutrition in a small group of HBOT outpatients treated in an Australian hospital, reporting that approximately one-third of patients receiving HBOT were at risk of malnutrition. To our knowledge, routine malnutrition screening is not available in HBOT centres providing outpatient treatment, which may be a key gap in the nutrition care of these patients. Malnutrition screening was developed to identify those at risk of malnutrition across the healthcare continuum. In the outpatient setting, it is recommended that patients are screened at their first clinic appointment and that screening is repeated when there is clinical concern. Malnutrition screening tools are designed to be quick and simple to complete by trained healthcare staff and include questions relating to appetite, oral intake and recent weight loss. The early identification of patients at risk of malnutrition using validated screening tools enables the appropriate and timely referral of patients to dietetic services for assessment and treatment. Why might malnutrition screening in HBOT services be important? It is well documented that the consequences of malnutrition are systemic, with increased morbidity and mortality attributed to malnutrition. Beyond the detrimental impact of malnutrition to the individual, malnutrition also has significant economic ramifications, with medical costs significantly higher in severely malnourished compared to well-nourished patients. Of particular relevance, malnutrition is associated with impaired and prolonged wound healing. This may influence the effectiveness and success of HBOT treatment, although studies in the area of HBOT and concurrent nutrition therapy are lacking. Furthermore, there are no reliable markers of nutrition status that are easily obtainable in the healthcare setting. In the past, prealbumin (transthyretin) and albumin have been used as surrogate markers of nutritional status. However, these serum proteins are acute-phase proteins and, therefore, are reduced during acute inflammation and infection, making them unreliable indicators of nutrition status. Transferrin, retinol binding protein and C-reactive protein are similarly not recommended as markers of nutrition status and malnutrition. Therefore, the implementation of malnutrition screening may be the most practical and validated method of identifying patients who would benefit from a comprehensive assessment of their nutrition status and provision of nutrition support in the HBOT setting. The assessment of nutrition status involves the collective evaluation of anthropometric data, biochemical markers, clinical symptoms impacting on nutrition (e.g., nausea) and oral intake. Tools such as the subjective global assessment have been developed and validated to assess nutrition status and diagnose malnutrition by trained staff. In contrast to other outpatient services, HBOT presents a unique opportunity to complete both malnutrition screening and engage a relevant dietetic service for nutrition assessment early in the course of treatment. The frequent contact with outpatients would also lend itself well to group nutrition education sessions to address important nutrition information related to wound healing. Although there is a paucity of data to support the use of malnutrition screening and dietetic assessments in HBOT, current best practice guidelines recommend these services in outpatient settings. The implementation of routine malnutrition screening and referral processes to dietetic services warrants consideration in the HBOT outpatient setting. If going down this path, careful consideration of available resources, how referral systems can be incorporated into current procedures as well as partnership with dietetic departments is integral. In the interim, the referral of patients to dietetic departments who are suspected to be at risk of poor wound healing due to nutrition factors and those failing treatment should be considered by treating hyperbaric physicians. Although further research is required to assess the effectiveness of malnutrition screening and nutrition intervention in the HBOT outpatient population, the data by See and colleagues provides an important starting point in unpacking malnutrition risk in this population.

Nutrition Therapy in Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Units: An International Comparison Study.

BACKGROUND: The Augmented Versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) is the largest blinded enteral nutrition (EN) intervention trial evaluating energy delivery to be conducted in the critically ill. To determine the external validity of TARGET results, nutrition practices in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) are described and compared with international practices. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for the International Nutrition Surveys, 2007-2013. Data are presented as mean (SD). RESULTS: A total of 17,154 patients (ANZ: n = 2776 vs international n = 14,378) from 923 ICUs (146 and 777, respectively) were included. EN was the most common route of feeding (ANZ: 85%, n = 2365 patients vs international: 84%, n = 12,034; P = .258), and EN concentration was also similar (<1.25 kcal/mL ANZ: 70%, n = 12,396 vs international: 65%, n = 56,891 administrations; P < .001). Protein delivery was substantially below the estimated prescriptions but similar between the regions (0.6 [0.4] g/kg/day vs 0.6 [0.4] g/kg/day; P = .849). Patients in ANZ received slightly more energy (1133 [572] vs 948[536] kcal/day; P < .001), possibly because more energy was prescribed (1947 [348] vs 1747 [376] kcal/day; P < .001), nutrition protocols were more commonly used (98% vs 75%; P < .001) and included recommendations for therapies such as prokinetic agents (87% vs 51%, n = 399; P < .001) and small bowel feeding (62% vs 40%; P < .001) when compared with international ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: Key elements of nutrition practice are similar in ANZ and international ICUs. These data can be used to determine the external validity and relevance of TARGET results.

Delivery of full predicted energy from nutrition and the effect on mortality in critically ill adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The amount of energy required to improve clinical outcomes in critically ill adults is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of near target energy delivery to critically ill adults on mortality and other clinically relevant outcomes. DESIGN: Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials evaluating nutrition interventions in adult critical care populations. Included studies compared delivery of ≥80% of predicted energy requirements (near target) from enteral and/or parenteral nutrition to <80% (standard care) and reported mortality. The quality of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool, and the overall body of evidence using the GRADE approach. Fixed or random effect meta-analyses were used pending the presence of heterogeneity (I2 > 50%) when 3 or more studies reported the same outcome. Outcomes are presented as risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Ten trials with 3155 participants were included. Mortality was unaffected by the intervention (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81, 1.27, p = 0.89, I2 = 25%). Evaluation of studies of higher quality and low risk of bias did not alter the mortality inference (3 trials, 352 participants, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.49, 1.40, p = 0.19, I2 = 39%). The quality of evidence across outcomes was very low. CONCLUSIONS: The delivery of near target energy when compared to standard care in adult critically ill patients was not associated with an effect on mortality. Because the quality of the evidence across outcomes was very low there is considerable uncertainty surrounding this estimate. This has implications for clinical utility of the evidence within the included reviews.

Full predicted energy from nutrition and the effect on mortality and infectious complications in critically ill adults: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of parallel randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Whilst nutrition is vital to survival in health, the precise role of nutrition during critical illness is controversial. More specifically, the exact amount of energy that is required during critical illness to optimally influence clinical outcomes remains unknown. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the clinical effects of optimising nutrition to critically ill adult patients, such that the entire predicted amount of energy that the patient requires is delivered, on mortality and other important outcomes. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis will be conducted by searching for studies indexed in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Library. Searches will be restricted to English. Studies will be considered for inclusion if they are a parallel randomised controlled trial investigating a nutrition intervention in an adult critical care population, where one arm delivers 'full predicted energy from nutrition' (defined as provision of ≥80% of the predicted energy required) and the other arm delivers energy less than 80% of the predicted requirement. Two authors will independently perform title screening, full-text screening, data extraction and quality assessment for this review. The quality of individual studies will be assessed using the 'Risk of Bias' tool, and to assess the overall body of evidence, a 'Summary of Findings' table and the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be used, all recommended by the Cochrane Library. Pending the study heterogeneity that is determined, a fixed-effect meta-analysis with pre-defined subgroup analyses will be performed. DISCUSSION: Currently, it is controversial whether optimal energy delivery is beneficial for outcomes in critically ill patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis will evaluate whether delivering optimal energy to critically ill adult patients improves outcomes when compared to delivery of lesser amounts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015027512.

Nutrition therapy in adult patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a prospective, multicentre, observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe current nutrition delivery practices and to identify barriers to nutrition in patients receiving venovenous or venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in multiple centres in Australia and New Zealand. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective, multicentre, observational study, set in eight intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand, of adults treated with ECMO who were expected to receive enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN) therapy for > 72 hours. Data were collected from the start of ECMO until 7 days after ECMO cessation. RESULTS: There were 107 patients enrolled, with a median age of 42 years (interquartile range [IQR], 31-56 years), and 54 patients (50%) were men. EN was the most commonly delivered mode of nutrition (on 84% of days) although it was interrupted on 53% of days. The median interruption duration was 8 hours (IQR, 4-5 hours] per episode. The two most common barriers to EN delivery were fasting for a therapeutic or diagnostic procedure and high gastric residual volumes. Median daily calorie and protein deliveries from EN and/or PN were 1680 kcal (IQR, 960-2100 kcal) and 72 g (IQR, 42-98 g) of protein. For patients who received EN and/or PN, median calorie and protein deficits during the study period were -7118 kcal (IQR, -11 614 to -4510 kcal) and -325 g (IQR, - 525 to -188 g) of protein. CONCLUSIONS: EN was the most commonly used nutrition-delivery mode during ECMO treatment but was frequently interrupted. Compared with estimated calorie and protein requirements, lesser but reasonably acceptable amounts were delivered, although calorie and protein deficits still existed.

Practicalities of nutrition support in the intensive care unit: the usefulness of gastric residual volume and prokinetic agents with enteral nutrition.

The provision of early nutrition therapy to critically ill patients is established as the standard of care in most intensive care units around the world. Despite the known benefits, tolerance of enteral nutrition in the critically ill varies and delivery is often interrupted. Observational research has demonstrated that clinicians deliver little more than half of the enteral nutrition they plan to provide. The main clinical tool for assessing gastric tolerance is gastric residual volume; however, its usefulness in this setting is debated. There are several strategies employed to improve the tolerance and hence adequacy of enteral nutrition delivery in the critically ill. One of the most widely used strategies is that of prokinetic drug administration, most commonly metoclopramide and erythromycin. Although there are new agents being investigated, none are ready for routine application in the critically ill and the benefits are still being established. This review investigates current practice and considers the literature on assessment of enteral tolerance and optimization of enteral nutrition in the critically ill.

Nutritional therapy in patients with acute pancreatitis requiring critical care unit management: a prospective observational study in Australia and New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: To determine nutritional therapy practices of patients with severe acute pancreatitis (defined as those receiving critical care management in an intensive care unit or high-dependency unit) in Australia and New Zealand with focus on the choice of enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition. DESIGN: Prospective observational multicentered study performed at 40 sites in Australia and New Zealand over 6 months. SETTING: Intensive care units or high-dependency units within Australia and New Zealand. PATIENTS: Those with severe acute pancreatitis diagnosed by elevated lipase and/or amylase. Patients with chronic pancreatitis were excluded. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition, or concurrent enteral nutrition/parenteral nutrition. Secondary outcomes included other aspects of nutritional therapy and the severity and clinical outcomes of acute pancreatitis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 121 patients and 117 were analyzed. The mean age was 61 (sd 17) years and 53% were men. Enteral nutrition was delivered to 58 (50%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 41-59%) and parenteral nutrition to 49 (42%; 95% CI, 33-51%) patients. Parenteral nutrition was more frequently used as the initial therapy (58%; 95% CI, 49-67%) than enteral nutrition (42%; 95% CI, 33-51%). The most common reason for parenteral nutrition prescription was the treating doctor's preference (60%). Enteral nutrition (74%) was more often used than parenteral nutrition (40%) on any individual study day. Concurrent enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition occurred in 28 (24%) patients on 14% of days. Complications of acute pancreatitis requiring critical care unit management were observed in 45 (39%) patients. The median (interquartile range) duration of intensive care unit and hospital stay were 5 (2-10) and 19 (9-31) days, respectively. The hospital mortality rate was 15% (95% CI, 8-21%), and there was a tendency toward higher mortality for patients who only received parenteral nutrition than for those who only received enteral nutrition (28% vs. 7%, p=.06). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with acute pancreatitis requiring critical care unit management in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units, enteral nutrition is used most commonly, but parenteral nutrition is more often used as the initial route of nutritional therapy. Given that clinical practice guidelines currently recommend enteral nutrition as the initial route of nutritional therapy in severe acute pancreatitis, improved education about and dissemination of these guidelines seems warranted.