Parenteral Nutrition: Current Use, Complications, and Nutrition Delivery in Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is needed to avoid the development of malnutrition when enteral nutrition (EN) is not possible. Our main aim was to assess the current use, complications, and nutrition delivery associated with PN administration in adult critically ill patients, especially when used early and as the initial route. We also assessed the differences between patients who received only PN and those in whom EN was initiated after PN (PN-EN). METHODS: A multicenter (n = 37) prospective observational study was performed. Patient clinical characteristics, outcomes, and nutrition-related variables were recorded. Statistical differences between subgroups were analyzed accordingly. RESULTS: From the entire population (n = 629), 186 (29.6%) patients received PN as initial nutrition therapy. Of these, 74 patients (11.7%) also received EN during their ICU stay (i.e., PN-EN subgroup). PN was administered early (<48 h) in the majority of patients (75.3%; n = 140) and the mean caloric (19.94 ± 6.72 Kcal/kg/day) and protein (1.01 ± 0.41 g/kg/day) delivery was similar to other contemporary studies. PN showed similar nutritional delivery when compared with the enteral route. No significant complications were associated with the use of PN. Thirty-two patients (43.3%) presented with EN-related complications in the PN-EN subgroup but received a higher mean protein delivery (0.95 ± 0.43 vs 1.17 ± 0.36 g/kg/day; p = 0.03) compared with PN alone. Once adjusted for confounding factors, patients who received PN alone had a lower mean protein intake (hazard ratio (HR): 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.47; p = 0.001), shorter ICU stay (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99; p = 0.008), and fewer days on mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81-0.89; p = 0.001) compared with the PN-EN subgroup. CONCLUSION: The parenteral route may be safe, even when administered early, and may provide adequate nutrition delivery. Additional EN, when possible, may optimize protein requirements, especially in more severe patients who received initial PN and are expected to have longer ICU stays. NCT Registry: 03634943.

Factors associated with the need of parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients after the initiation of enteral nutrition therapy.

Background and aims: Despite enteral nutrition (EN) is the preferred route of nutrition in patients with critical illness, EN is not always able to provide optimal nutrient provision and parenteral nutrition (PN) is needed. This is strongly associated with gastrointestinal (GI) complications, a feature of gastrointestinal dysfunction and disease severity. The aim of the present study was to investigate factors associated with the need of PN after start of EN, together with the use and complications associated with EN. Methods: Adult patients admitted to 38 Spanish intensive care units (ICUs) between April and July 2018, who needed EN therapy were included in a prospective observational study. The characteristics of EN-treated patients and those who required PN after start EN were analyzed (i.e., clinical, laboratory and scores). Results: Of a total of 443 patients, 43 (9.7%) received PN. One-third (29.3%) of patients presented GI complications, which were more frequent among those needing PN (26% vs. 60%, p = 0.001). No differences regarding mean energy and protein delivery were found between patients treated only with EN (n = 400) and those needing supplementary or total PN (n = 43). Abnormalities in lipid profile, blood proteins, and inflammatory markers, such as C-Reactive Protein, were shown in those patients needing PN. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) on ICU admission (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.161, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.053-1.281, p = 0.003) and modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score (HR:1.311, 95% CI:1.098-1.565, p = 0.003) were higher among those who needed PN. In the multivariate analysis, higher SOFA score (HR:1.221, 95% CI:1.057-1.410, p = 0.007) and higher triglyceride levels on ICU admission (HR:1.004, 95% CI:1.001-1.007, p = 0.003) were associated with an increased risk for the need of PN, whereas higher albumin levels on ICU admission (HR:0.424, 95% CI:0.210-0.687, p = 0.016) was associated with lower need of PN. Conclusion: A higher SOFA and nutrition-related laboratory parameters on ICU admission may be associated with the need of PN after starting EN therapy. This may be related with a higher occurrence of GI complications, a feature of GI dysfunction. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03634943.

The Effect of Enteral Immunonutrition in the Intensive Care Unit: Does It Impact on Outcomes?

Background: The present research aimed to evaluate the effect on outcomes of immunonutrition (IMN) enteral formulas during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was performed. Patient characteristics, disease severity, nutritional status, type of nutritional therapy and outcomes, and laboratory parameters were collected in a database. Statistical differences were analyzed according to the administration of IMN or other types of enteral formulas. Results: In total, 406 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 15.02% (61) received IMN. Univariate analysis showed that patients treated with IMN formulas received higher mean caloric and protein intake, and better 28-day survival (85.2% vs. 73.3%; p = 0.014. Unadjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.15; 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 0.06−0.36; p < 0.001). Once adjusted for confounding factors, multivariate analysis showed a lower need for vasopressor support (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.26−0.91; p = 0.023) and continuous renal replacement therapies (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.01−0.65; p = 0.049) in those patients who received IMN formulas, independently of the severity of the disease. IMN use was also associated with higher protein intake during the administration of nutritional therapy (OR: 6.23; 95% CI: 2.59−15.54; p < 0.001), regardless of the type of patient. No differences were found in the laboratory parameters, except for a trend toward lower triglyceride levels (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95−0.99; p = 0.045). Conclusion: The use of IMN formulas may be associated with better outcomes (i.e., lower need for vasopressors and continuous renal replacement), together with a trend toward higher protein enteral delivery during the ICU stay. These findings may ultimately be related to their modulating effect on the inflammatory response in the critically ill. NCT Registry: 03634943.

Evaluation of Nutritional Practices in the Critical Care patient (The ENPIC study): Does nutrition really affect ICU mortality?

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The importance of artificial nutritional therapy is underrecognized, typically being considered an adjunctive rather than a primary therapy. We aimed to evaluate the influence of nutritional therapy on mortality in critically ill patients. METHODS: This multicenter prospective observational study included adult patients needing artificial nutritional therapy for >48 h if they stayed in one of 38 participating intensive care units for ≥72 h between April and July 2018. Demographic data, comorbidities, diagnoses, nutritional status and therapy (type and details for ≤14 days), and outcomes were registered in a database. Confounders such as disease severity, patient type (e.g., medical, surgical or trauma), and type and duration of nutritional therapy were also included in a multivariate analysis, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were reported. RESULTS: We included 639 patients among whom 448 (70.1%) and 191 (29.9%) received enteral and parenteral nutrition, respectively. Mortality was 25.6%, with non-survivors having the following characteristics: older age; more comorbidities; higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (6.6 ± 3.3 vs 8.4 ± 3.7; P < 0.001); greater nutritional risk (Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill [NUTRIC] score: 3.8 ± 2.1 vs 5.2 ± 1.7; P < 0.001); more vasopressor requirements (70.4% vs 83.5%; P=0.001); and more renal replacement therapy (12.2% vs 23.2%; P=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (HR: 1.023; 95% CI: 1.008-1.038; P=0.003), higher SOFA score (HR: 1.096; 95% CI: 1.036-1.160; P=0.001), higher NUTRIC score (HR: 1.136; 95% CI: 1.025-1.259; P=0.015), requiring parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition (HR: 2.368; 95% CI: 1.168-4.798; P=0.017), and a higher mean Kcal/Kg/day intake (HR: 1.057; 95% CI: 1.015-1.101; P=0.008) were associated with mortality. By contrast, a higher mean protein intake protected against mortality (HR: 0.507; 95% CI: 0.263-0.977; P=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Old age, higher organ failure scores, and greater nutritional risk appear to be associated with higher mortality. Patients who need parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition may represent a high-risk subgroup for mortality due to illness severity and problems receiving appropriate nutritional therapy. Mean calorie and protein delivery also appeared to influence outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicaTrials.gov NCT: 03634943.