Approximately 50% of acute intestinal failure (AIF) patients on short-term parenteral nutrition (PN) have intestinal failure-associated liver disease (IFALD) without effect on hospital length of stay and mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with intestinal failure (IF) are often dependent on PN for provision of calories and nutrients for survival. Similar to chronic intestinal failure (CIF) patients, those who have AIF are also at risk of IFALD, which is a poorly understood but potentially fatal condition. The local incidence of IFALD amongst AIF patients is not known. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine the incidence of IFALD in AIF patients on short-term PN. Secondary objectives were to analyse patient and PN risk factors of IFALD, and clinical outcomes of length of stay (LOS) and inpatient mortality. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cross-sectional cohort study of hospitalised adult patients with AIF prescribed with short-term PN. All adult patients aged 21 years and above who received PN for at least 5 consecutive days and had normal liver function tests (LFTs) at the time of PN initiation were included in this study. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients were enrolled in this study, with 77 (45%) having deranged LFTs at the end of PN therapy and categorised under the IFLAD group. The patient cohort was predominantly male (92 [54%]) and had a median age of 68 years (IQR 59-76). Patients with IFALD at the end of PN therapy had higher diabetes prevalence (36% vs 26%, p = 0.2) and were on PN for a longer duration (median [IQR]: 12 [8-17] vs 8 [6-15] days, p = 0.003) than those without IFALD. There were no significant differences in patient and PN characteristics between the IFLAD and non-IFALD group. The multivariable models showed that the IFALD cohort had longer hospital stays (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.23) and lower odds of inpatient death (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.12-4.60), though both findings are not statistically significant (p = 0.5, 0.7). CONCLUSION: In this study, IFALD is a common phenomenon in AIF and the incidence was found to be an estimated 50% amongst patients on short-term PN with similar clinical outcomes between the two groups.

Modified minimal-contact COVID-19 workflow allows for safe, remote parenteral nutrition prescribing in non-critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: In line with recent guidance from the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) to minimize healthcare team exposure by clustering care and relying on other providers or telehealth to collect relevant nutrition assessments, our nutrition support team has adopted a modified workflow using information technology to provide parenteral nutrition (PN) remotely in a safe and timely manner. We aim to compare our prescribing adequacy and PN-related complications before and during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak using the modified workflow in non-critically ill patients. METHODS: This study reviewed a prospectively recruited cohort of adults receiving PN in the general wards or high-dependency units from December 5, 2019, to April 15, 2020. Demographic data, nutrition assessment, PN prescriptions, blood results, electronic notes, capillary blood glucose monitoring, and catheter-related bloodstream infection rates were reviewed for patients who received PN. RESULTS: We found that patients who started PN during COVID-19 were more malnourished with lower body mass index and higher proportion of Subjective Global Assessment B/C scores (52 [92.9%] vs 36 [73.5%], P < .005). The proportion of patients who achieved target energy amounts within 5 days was similar in both groups. Protein prescription was >1 g/kg/day in both groups, though there was a trend of higher protein prescription during COVID-19. Complications were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates that minimal contact with effective multidisciplinary communication using the modified workflow can allow for safe and timely PN administration.

Effect of alternative intravenous lipid emulsion in clinical outcome in non-critically ill patients.

INTRODUCTION: Most studies on alternative intravenous lipid emulsion (IVLE) versus conventional IVLE have been conducted in the critically ill patients. The benefits of alternative IVLE in non-critically ill patients is uncertain. We aim to determine clinical outcome difference between alternative IVLE versus conventional IVLE in non-critically ill patients. METHOD: All patients on parenteral nutrition (PN) from July 2007 to September 2010 were identified. Patients were stratified into two groups: conventional IVLE (soybean oil-based) and alternative IVLEs, namely MCT oil-based, olive oil-based and fish oil-containing IVLE. RESULT: Three hundred and eighty-eight patients were included in the study. Ninety-one patients received soybean-based IVLE, 59 patients received MCT oil-based IVLE, 141 patients received olive oil-based IVLE and 97 patients received fish oil-containing IVLE. Adjusting the effect of baseline covariates in separate multiple linear/logistic regression models, there were no differences in mortality, readmission, length of stay and infection between conventional IVLE group and alternative IVLEs group, the adjusted p-value was 0.64, 0.06, 0.36 and 0.18 respectively. However, there was a significant change in day 5 CRP between these two groups (8.43 g/L (SD 112.2) vs -41.2 (SD 106.4); adjusted p-value = 0.01). There was no difference in day 5 albumin between these two group (-1.03 (SD 5.1) vs -0.1 (SD 5.3); adjusted p-value = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that pertinent clinical outcomes in non-critically ill patients who received either conventional IVLE or alternative IVLEs were the same. However, there was significant reduction in day-5 CRP in alternative IVLE compared to conventional IVLE.

A randomised, double-blind, multi-centre trial comparing vasopressin and adrenaline in patients with cardiac arrest presenting to or in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVE: To compare vasopressin and adrenaline in the treatment of patients with cardiac arrest presenting to or in the Emergency Department (ED). DESIGN: A randomised, double-blind, multi-centre, parallel-design clinical trial in four adult hospitals. METHOD: Eligible cardiac arrest patients (confirmed by the absence of pulse, unresponsiveness and apnea) aged >16 (aged>21 for one hospital) were randomly assigned to intravenous adrenaline (1mg) or vasopressin (40 IU) at ED. Patients with traumatic cardiac arrest or contraindication for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were excluded. Patients received additional open label doses of adrenaline as per current guidelines. Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge (defined as participant discharged alive or survival to 30 days post-arrest). MAIN RESULTS: The study recruited 727 participants (adrenaline = 353; vasopressin = 374). Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Eight participants (2.3%) from adrenaline and 11 (2.9%) from vasopressin group survived to hospital discharge with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.27, RR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.65-4.51). After adjustment for race, medical history, bystander CPR and prior adrenaline given, more participants survived to hospital admission with vasopressin (22.2%) than with adrenaline (16.7%) (p = 0.05, RR = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.02-2.04). Sub-group analysis suggested improved outcomes for vasopressin in participants with prolonged arrest times. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of vasopressin and adrenaline did not improve long term survival but seemed to improve survival to admission in patients with prolonged cardiac arrest. Further studies on the effect of vasopressin combined with therapeutic hypothermia on patients with prolonged cardiac arrest are needed.