Dietary protein in the ICU in relation to health outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critical care nutrition guidelines recommend provision of higher protein doses than recommended in health. These recommendations have been predominately based on lower quality evidence and physiological rationale that greater protein doses may attenuate the significant muscle loss observed in critically ill patients. This review discusses the mechanistic action of protein in the critically ill, details results from recent trials on health outcomes, discusses considerations for interpretation of trial results, and provides an overview of future directions. RECENT FINDINGS: Two recent large clinical trials have investigated different protein doses and the effect on clinical outcome. Important findings revealed potential harm in certain sub-groups of patients. This harm must be balanced with the potential for beneficial effects on muscle mass and physical function given that two recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses demonstrated attenuation of muscle loss with higher protein doses. Utilizing biological markers such as urea: creatinine ratio or urea levels may prove useful in monitoring harm from higher protein doses. SUMMARY: Future research should focus on prospectively investigating biological signatures of harm as well as taking into the consideration elements that will likely enhance the effectiveness of protein dose.

The Association Between Malnutrition and High Protein Treatment on Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EFFORT Protein Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preexisting malnutrition in critically ill patients is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Malnutrition can be diagnosed with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition using parameters such as weight loss, muscle wasting, and BMI. International critical care nutrition guidelines recommend high protein treatment to improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients diagnosed with preexisting malnutrition. However, this recommendation is based on expert opinion. RESEARCH QUESTION: In critically ill patients, what is the association between preexisting malnutrition and time to discharge alive (TTDA), and does high protein treatment modify this association? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter randomized controlled trial involving 16 countries was designed to investigate the effects of high vs usual protein treatment in 1,301 critically ill patients. The primary outcome was TTDA. Multivariable regression was used to identify if preexisting malnutrition was associated with TTDA and if protein delivery modified their association. RESULTS: The prevalence of preexisting malnutrition was 43.8%, and the cumulative incidence of live hospital discharge by day 60 was 41.2% vs 52.9% in the groups with and without preexisting malnutrition, respectively. The average protein delivery in the high vs usual treatment groups was 1.6 g/kg per day vs 0.9 g/kg per day. Preexisting malnutrition was independently associated with slower TTDA (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98). However, high protein treatment in patients with and without preexisting malnutrition was not associated with TTDA (adjusted hazard ratios of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.63-1.11] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.77-1.21]). Furthermore, no effect modification was observed (ratio of adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20). INTERPRETATION: Malnutrition was associated with slower TTDA, but high protein treatment did not modify the association. These findings challenge current international critical care nutrition guidelines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03160547; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Association between urea trajectory and protein dose in critically ill adults: a secondary exploratory analysis of the effort protein trial (RE-EFFORT).

BACKGROUND: Delivering higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve patient outcomes and may have caused harm. Longitudinal urea measurements could provide additional information about the treatment effect of higher protein doses. We hypothesised that higher urea values over time could explain the potential harmful treatment effects of higher doses of protein. METHODS: We conducted a reanalysis of a randomised controlled trial of higher protein doses in critical illness (EFFORT Protein). We applied Bayesian joint models to estimate the strength of association of urea with 30-day survival and understand the treatment effect of higher protein doses. RESULTS: Of the 1301 patients included in EFFORT Protein, 1277 were included in this analysis. There were 344 deaths at 30 days post-randomisation. By day 6, median urea was 2.1 mmol/L higher in the high protein group (95% CI 1.1-3.2), increasing to 3.0 mmol/L (95% CI 1.3-4.7) by day 12. A twofold rise in urea was associated with an increased risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% credible interval 1.21-1.48), following adjustment of baseline characteristics including age, illness severity, renal replacement therapy, and presence of AKI. This association persisted over the duration of 30-day follow-up and in models adjusting for evolution of organ failure over time. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of death in patients randomised to a higher protein dose in the EFFORT Protein trial was estimated to be mediated by increased urea cycle activity, of which serum urea is a biological signature. Serum urea should be taken into consideration when initiating and continuing protein delivery in critically ill patients. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier: NCT03160547 (2017-05-17).

A Comparison of High and Usual Protein Dosing in Critically Ill Patients With Obesity: A Post Hoc Analysis of an International, Pragmatic, Single-Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Across guidelines, protein dosing for critically ill patients with obesity varies considerably. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether this population would benefit from higher doses of protein. DESIGN: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicenter, pragmatic, registry-based randomized trial. SETTING: Eighty-five adult ICUs across 16 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with obesity defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 ( n = 425). INTERVENTIONS: In the primary study, patients were randomized into a high-dose (≥ 2.2 g/kg/d) or usual-dose protein group (≤ 1.2 g/kg/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Protein intake was monitored for up to 28 days, and outcomes (time to discharge alive [TTDA], 60-d mortality, days of mechanical ventilation [MV], hospital, and ICU length of stay [LOS]) were recorded until 60 days post-randomization. Of the 1301 patients in the primary study, 425 had a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 . After adjusting for sites and covariates, we observed a nonsignificant slower rate of TTDA with higher protein that ruled out a clinically important benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05; p = 0.10). We found no evidence of difference in TTDA between protein groups when subgroups with different classes of obesity or patients with and without various nutritional and frailty risk variables were examined, even after the removal of patients with baseline acute kidney injury. Overall, 60-day mortality rates were 31.5% and 28.2% in the high protein and usual protein groups, respectively (risk difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 12.1; p = 0.46). Duration of MV and LOS in hospital and ICU were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with obesity, higher protein doses did not improve clinical outcomes, including those with higher nutritional and frailty risk.

A pilot study of alternative substrates in the critically Ill subject using a ketogenic feed.

Bioenergetic failure caused by impaired utilisation of glucose and fatty acids contributes to organ dysfunction across multiple tissues in critical illness. Ketone bodies may form an alternative substrate source, but the feasibility and safety of inducing a ketogenic state in physiologically unstable patients is not known. Twenty-nine mechanically ventilated adults with multi-organ failure managed on intensive care units were randomised (Ketogenic n = 14, Control n = 15) into a two-centre pilot open-label trial of ketogenic versus standard enteral feeding. The primary endpoints were assessment of feasibility and safety, recruitment and retention rates and achievement of ketosis and glucose control. Ketogenic feeding was feasible, safe, well tolerated and resulted in ketosis in all patients in the intervention group, with a refusal rate of 4.1% and 82.8% retention. Patients who received ketogenic feeding had fewer hypoglycaemic events (0.0% vs. 1.6%), required less exogenous international units of insulin (0 (Interquartile range 0-16) vs.78 (Interquartile range 0-412) but had slightly more daily episodes of diarrhoea (53.5% vs. 42.9%) over the trial period. Ketogenic feeding was feasible and may be an intervention for addressing bioenergetic failure in critically ill patients. Clinical Trials.gov registration: NCT04101071.

Implementation of the ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit (ICU): It is time to move forward!: A position paper from the 'nutrition in the ICU' ESPEN special interest group.

Nutritional assessment and provision of nutritional therapy are a core part of intensive care unit (ICU) patient treatment. The ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the ICU was published in 2019. However, uncertainty and difficulties remain regarding its full implementation in daily practice. This position paper is intended to help ICU healthcare professionals facilitate the implementation of ESPEN nutrition guidelines to ensure the best care for their patients. We have aimed to emphasize the guideline recommendations that need to be implemented in the ICU, are advised, or are optional, and to give practical directives to improve the guideline recommendations in daily practice. These statements were written by the members of the ICU nutrition ESPEN special interest group (SIG), based on a survey aimed at identifying current practices relating to key issues in ICU nutrition. The ultimate goal is to improve the ICU patients quality of care.

Micronutrient Losses during Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy.

Acute kidney injury impacts the micronutrient status by various mechanisms including decreased enteral absorption, changes in redistribution, altered metabolism, and increased consumption. When renal replacement therapy (RRT) is applied, there are additional losses of vitamins, trace elements, and amino acids, and their derivatives due to diffusion or adhesion. Varied data exist regarding the degree of micronutrient losses and plasma concentrations in patients who receive RRT, and these differ by RRT modality, dose, duration, and type of micronutrient. Water-soluble vitamins, selenium, copper, and carnitine are among the most frequently reported depleted nutrients. The role of micronutrient supplementation in critically ill patients undergoing RRT and the optimal dose and mode of administration are yet to be determined.

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.

How to avoid harm with feeding critically ill patients: a synthesis of viewpoints of a basic scientist, dietitian and intensivist.

The optimal feeding strategy in critically ill patients is a matter of debate, with current guidelines recommending different strategies regarding energy and protein targets. Several recent trials have added to the debate and question our previous understanding of the provision of nutrition during critical illness. This narrative review aims to provide a summary of interpretation of recent evidence from the view of basic scientist, critical care dietitian and intensivist, resulting in joined suggestions for both clinical practice and future research. In the most recent randomised controlled trial (RCT), patients receiving 6 versus 25 kcal/kg/day by any route achieved readiness for ICU discharge earlier and had fewer GI complications. A second showed that high protein dosage may be harmful in patients with baseline acute kidney injury and more severe illness. Lastly, a prospective observational study using propensity score matched analysis suggested that early full feeding, especially enteral, compared to delayed feeding is associated with a higher 28-day mortality. Viewpoints from all three professionals point to the agreement that early full feeding is likely harmful, whereas important questions regarding the mechanisms of harm as well as on timing and optimal dose of nutrition for individual patients remain unanswered and warrant future studies. For now, we suggest giving low dose of energy and protein during the first few days in the ICU and apply individualised approach based on assumed metabolic state according to the trajectory of illness thereafter. At the same time, we encourage research to develop better tools to monitor metabolism and the nutritional needs for the individual patient accurately and continuously.

Micronutrient use in critical care: Survey of clinical practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Micronutrients, principally vitamins and minerals, play an important role both in health and in disease. Parenteral micronutrient products are commonly prescribed for critically ill patients both in line with the terms of the product's license, and for other indications where there is an underpinning physiological rationale, or precedent, for their use but little evidence. This survey sought to understand United Kingdom (UK) prescribing practice in this area. METHODS: A 12-question survey was circulated to healthcare professionals working in UK critical care units. The survey was designed to explore several aspects of micronutrient prescribing or recommendation practice by the critical care multidisciplinary team, including indications and underpinning clinical rationale for using these products, dosing, and considerations with respect to micronutrients delivered as part of nutrition. Results were analysed, exploring indications, considerations relating to diagnoses, therapies including renal replacement therapies, and method of nutrition. RESULTS: 217 responses were included in the analysis, with 58% from physicians and the remaining 42% from nurses, pharmacists, dietitians and other healthcare disciplines. Vitamins were most commonly prescribed or recommended for Wernicke's encephalopathy (prescribed or recommended by 76% of respondents), treatment of refeeding syndrome (64.5%), and for patients with unknown or uncertain alcohol intake history (63.6%). These clinically suspected or confirmed indications were cited more frequently as a reason to prescribe than laboratory identified deficiency states. 20% of respondents indicated that they would prescribe or recommend parenteral vitamins for patients requiring renal replacement therapy. The practice of vitamin C prescribing was heterogeneous, including dose and indication. Trace elements were prescribed or recommended less often than vitamins, with the most frequently reported indications being for patients requiring parenteral nutrition (42.9%), biochemically confirmed deficiency states (35.9%), and for treatment of refeeding syndrome (26.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Micronutrient prescribing in ICUs in the UK is heterogeneous, with clinical scenarios where there is an evidence base or an established precedent for their use often guiding decisions to use micronutrient products. Further work to examine the potential benefits and harms on patient-oriented outcomes of micronutrient product administration should be undertaken, to facilitate their judicious and cost-effective use, with a focus on areas where they have a theoretical benefit.

The effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicentre, pragmatic, registry-based randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of low-quality evidence, international critical care nutrition guidelines recommend a wide range of protein doses. The effect of delivering high-dose protein during critical illness is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that a higher dose of protein provided to critically ill patients would improve their clinical outcomes. METHODS: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline. INTERPRETATION: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores. FUNDING: None.

The 3 Wishes Program Improves Families' Experience of Emotional and Spiritual Support at the End of Life.

BACKGROUND: The end-of-life (EOL) experience in the intensive care unit (ICU) is emotionally challenging, and there are opportunities for improvement. The 3 Wishes Program (3WP) promotes the dignity of dying patients and their families by eliciting and implementing wishes at the EOL. AIM: To assess whether the 3WP is associated with improved ratings of EOL care. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: In the 3WP, clinicians elicit and fulfill simple wishes for dying patients and their families. SETTING: 2-hospital academic healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Dying patients in the ICU and their families. PROGRAM EVALUATION: A modified Bereaved Family Survey (BFS), a validated tool for measuring EOL care quality, was completed by families of ICU decedents approximately 3 months after death. We compared patients whose care involved the 3WP to those who did not using three BFS-derived measures: Respectful Care and Communication (5 questions), Emotional and Spiritual Support (3 questions), and the BFS-Performance Measure (BFS-PM, a single-item global measure of care). RESULTS: Of 314 completed surveys, 117 were for patients whose care included the 3WP. Bereaved families of 3WP patients rated the Emotional and Spiritual Support factor significantly higher (7.5 vs. 6.0, p = 0.003, adjusted p = 0.001) than those who did not receive the 3WP. The Respectful Care and Communication factor and BFS-PM were no different between groups. DISCUSSION: The 3WP is a low-cost intervention that may be a feasible strategy for improving the EOL experience.

Nutrition support practices across the care continuum in a single centre critical care unit during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic - A comparison of VV-ECMO and non-ECMO patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high nutrition risk. This study aimed to describe the nutrition support practices in a single centre critical care unit during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. Practices were explored from ICU admission to post-ICU follow-up clinic and patients who received veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) were compared to those who did not. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included COVID-19 positive, adult ICU patients who were mechanically ventilated for ≥72 h. Data were collected from ICU admission until the time of post-ICU clinic. For in-ICU data, results are compared between patients who did and did not receive VV-ECMO. RESULTS: 252 patients were included (VV-ECMO n = 58). Adequate energy and protein was delivered in 193 (76.6%) patients during their ICU admission with no differences between those who did and did not receive VV-ECMO (44 (75.9%) vs. 149 (76.8%)). Parenteral nutrition only being required in 12 (4.8%) patients. Following stepdown to the ward 77 (70%) patients required ongoing enteral nutrition support, and 74 (66.7%) required a texture modified diet or were NBM. Following hospital discharge, nearly a third of ICU survivors (28.4%) were referred for dietetic input. The most common referral reason was loss of weight. Breathlessness and fatigue were the most commonly reported nutrition impact symptoms experienced following hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Results show it is possible to reach nutritional adequacy for most patients and that neither VV-ECMO nor proning were barriers to nutritional adequacy. Nutritional issues for patients who were critically ill with COVID-19 persist following stepdown to ward level and into the community and strategies to manage this require further investigation.

The Post-ICU presentation screen (PICUPS) and rehabilitation prescription (RP) for intensive care survivors part II: Clinical engagement and future directions for the national Post-Intensive care Rehabilitation Collaborative.

Background: Many Intensive Care Unit (ICU) survivors suffer from a multi- system disability, termed the post-intensive care syndrome. There is no current national coordination of either rehabilitation pathways or related data collection for them. In the last year, the need for tools to systematically identify the multidisciplinary rehabilitation needs of severely affected COVID-19 survivors has become clear. Such tools offer the opportunity to improve rehabilitation for all critical illness survivors through provision of a personalised Rehabilitation Prescription (RP). The initial development and secondary refinement of such an assessment and data tools is described in the linked paper. We report here the clinical and workforce data that was generated as a result. Methods: Prospective service evaluation of 26 acute hospitals in England using the Post-ICU Presentation Screen (PICUPS) tool and the RP. The PICUPS tool comprised items in domains of a) Medical and essential care, b) Breathing and nutrition; c) Physical movement and d) Communication, cognition and behaviour. Results: No difference was seen in total PICUPS scores between patients with or without COVID-19 (77 (IQR 60-92) vs. 84 (IQR 68-97); Mann-Whitney z = -1.46, p = 0.144. A network analysis demonstrated that requirements for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, dietetics and clinical psychology were closely related and unaffected by COVID-19 infection status. A greater proportion of COVID-19 patients were referred for inpatient rehabilitation (13% vs. 7%) and community-based rehabilitation (36% vs.15%). The RP informed by the PICUPS tool generally specified a greater need for multi-professional input when compared to rehabilitation plans instituted. Conclusions: The PICUPS tool is feasible to implement as a screening mechanism for post-intensive care syndrome. No differences are seen in the rehabilitation needs of patients with and without COVID-19 infection. The RP could be the vehicle that drives the professional interventions across the transitions from acute to community care. No single discipline dominates the rehabilitation requirements of these patients, reinforcing the need for a personalised RP for critical illness survivors.

The post-ICU presentation screen (PICUPS) and rehabilitation prescription (RP) for intensive care survivors part I: Development and preliminary clinimetric evaluation.

Background: Patients who have had prolonged stays in intensive care have ongoing rehabilitation needs. This is especially true of COVID-19 ICU patients, who can suffer diverse long-term ill effects. Currently there is no systematic data collection to guide the needs for therapy input for either of these groups nor to inform planning and development of rehabilitation services. These issues could be resolved in part by the systematic use of a clinical tool to support decision-making as patients progress from the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), through acute hospital care and onwards into rehabilitation. We describe (i) the development of such a tool (the Post-ICU Presentation Screen (PICUPS)) and (ii) the subsequent preparation of a person-centred Rehabilitation Prescription (RP) to travel with the patient as they continue down the care pathway. Methods: PICUPS development was led by a core group of experienced clinicians representing the various disciplines involved in post-ICU rehabilitation. Key constructs and item-level descriptors were identified by group consensus. Piloting was performed as part of wider clinical engagement in 26 acute hospitals across England. Development and validation of such a tool requires clinimetric analysis, and this was based on classical test theory. Teams also provided feedback about the feasibility and utility of the tool. Results: Initial PICUPS design yielded a 24-item tool. In piloting, a total of 552 records were collated from 314 patients, of which 121 (38.5%) had COVID-19. No obvious floor or ceiling effects were apparent. Exploratory factor analysis provided evidence of uni-dimensionality with strong loading on the first principal component accounting for 51% of the variance and Cronbach's alpha for the full-scale score 0.95 - although a 3-factor solution accounted for a further 21%. The PICUPS was responsive to change both at full scale- and item-level. In general, positive responses were seen regarding the tool's ability to describe the patients during their clinical course, engage and flag the relevant professionals needed, and to inform what should be included in an RP. Conclusions: The PICUPS tool has robust scaling properties as a clinical measure and is potentially useful as a tool for identifying rehabilitation needs as patients step down from ICU and acute hospital care.

Nutrition in postacute rehabilitation of COVID-19 survivors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at high nutrition risk and a significant number are likely to require ongoing nutrition rehabilitation. Here, we summarise guideline recommendations for nutritional rehabilitation in postacute COVID-19 infection, outline the rationale for nutrition rehabilitation for survivors of postacute COVID-19 in patients admitted to both the hospital ward and intensive care unit and discuss current evidence for interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Several guidelines exist outlining recommendations for nutrition care in hospital, critical care and the community setting. All have common themes pertaining to the importance of nutrition screening, nutrition assessment, appropriate choice of intervention and continuity of care across settings. While a plethora of data exists highlighting the high nutrition risk and prevalence of malnutrition in this population, minimal interventional studies have been published. SUMMARY: Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at high nutrition risk. Future studies should focus on nutrition interventions for the rehabilitation period and determine whether nutrition needs differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 survivors.

Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 ICU remote-learning rehabilitation course for frontline health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Background: Optimising outcomes for critically ill patients with COVID-19 patients requires early interdisciplinary rehabilitation. As admission numbers soared through the pandemic, the redeployed workforce needed rapid, effective training to deliver these rehabilitation interventions. Methods: The COVID-19 ICU Remote-Learning Rehab Course (CIRLC-rehab) is a one-day interdisciplinary course developed after the success of CIRLC-acute. The aim of CIRLC-rehab was to rapidly train healthcare professionals to deliver physical, nutritional and psychological rehabilitation strategies in the ICU/acute setting. The course used blended learning with interactive tutorials delivered by shielding critical care professionals. CIRLC-rehab was evaluated through a mixed-methods approach, including questionnaires, and follow-up semi-structured interviews to evaluate perceived impact on clinical practice. Quantitative data are reported as n (%) and means (SD). Inductive descriptive thematic analysis with methodological triangulation was used to analyse the qualitative data from the questionnaires and interviews. Results: 805 candidates completed CIRLC-rehab. 627 (78.8%) completed the post-course questionnaire. 95% (n = 596) found CIRLC-rehab extremely or very useful and 96.0% (n = 602) said they were very likely to recommend the course to colleagues. Overall confidence rose from 2.78/5 to 4.14/5. The course promoted holistic and humanised care, facilitated informal networks, promoted interdisciplinary working and equipped the candidates with practical rehabilitation strategies that they implemented into clinical practice. Conclusion: This pragmatic solution to educating redeployed staff during a pandemic increased candidates' confidence in the rehabilitation of critically ill patients. There was also evidence of modifications to clinical care utilising learning from the course that subjectively facilitated holistic and humanised rehabilitation, combined with the importance of recognising the humanity, of those working in ICU settings themselves. Whilst these data are self-reported, we believe that this work demonstrates the real-term benefits of remote, scalable and rapid educational delivery.

Effect of intermittent or continuous feeding and amino acid concentration on urea-to-creatinine ratio in critical illness.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether peaks in essential amino acid (EAA) concentration associated with intermittent feeding may provide anabolic advantages when compared with continuous feeding regimens in critical care. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of data from a multicenter trial of UK intensive care patients randomly assigned to intermittent or continuous feeding. A linear mixed-effects model was developed to assess differences in urea-creatinine ratio (raised values of which can be a marker of muscle wasting) between arms. To investigate metabolic phenotypes, we performed k-means urea-to-creatinine ratio trajectory clustering. Amino acid concentrations were also modeled against urea-to-creatinine ratio from day 1 to day 7. The main outcome measure was serum urea-to-creatinine ratio (millimole per millimole) from day 0 to the end of the 10-day study period. RESULTS: Urea-to-creatinine ratio trajectory differed between feeding regimens (coefficient -.245; P = .002). Patients receiving intermittent feeding demonstrated a flatter urea-to-creatinine ratio trajectory. With k-means analysis, the cluster with the largest proportion of continuously fed patients demonstrated the steepest rise in urea-to-creatinine ratio. Neither protein intake per se nor serum concentrations of EAA concentrations were correlated with urea-to-creatinine ratio (coefficient = .088 [P = .506] and coefficient <.001 [P = .122], respectively). CONCLUSION: Intermittent feeding can mitigate the rise in urea-to-creatinine ratio otherwise seen in those continuously fed, suggesting that catabolism may have been, to some degree, prevented.

HMB and leucine supplementation during critical illness and recovery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Skeletal muscle wasting is a serious consequence of critical illness, which may impact on long term physical and functional disability. To date, no intervention has been proven to reduce skeletal muscle wasting. Leucine and it's metabolite ß-hydroxy-ß-methylbutyrate (HMB) have been proposed as interventions. This review details the mechanism of action of both leucine and HMB, discusses the most recent research for both leucine and HMB and lastly discusses considerations for future research. RECENT FINDINGS: Only one study of leucine in critical illness has recently been published. This was a feasibility study where the physiological and muscle related outcomes were not reported to be feasible. Three studies on HMB have been reported recently with no effect seen on either muscle mass or strength. The main limitation in our understanding of the potential use of leucine or HMB on skeletal muscle wasting is the lack of mechanistic studies available in this population. SUMMARY: Mechanistic studies should be a priority before embarking on further randomized controlled trials related to this topic.