Trophic Nutrition in ICU Patients Undergoing High-Flow Oxygen Therapy and/or Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation: The Nutri-Trophic Study.

Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy in ICU patients requiring oxygen therapy with high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and/or noninvasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) is controversial. A prospective, cohort, observational, and multicenter study was conducted in 10 ICUs in Spain to analyze the 90-day mortality, tolerance, side effects, and infectious complications of trophic EN in patients requiring HFNC therapy and/or NIVM. A total of 149 patients were enrolled. The mean age, severity scores, tracheobronchitis, bacteremia, and antimicrobial therapy were significantly higher in deceased than in living patients (p < 0.05), and the mortality rate was 14.8%. A total of 110 patients received oral trophic feedings, 36 patients received nasogastric tube feedings (NGFs), and 3 received mixed feedings. Trophic EN was discontinued in only ten (14.9%) patients because of feeding-related complications. The variables selected for the multivariate logistic regression on feeding discontinuation were SOFA upon admission (OR per unit = 1.461) and urea (OR per mg/dL = 1.029). There were no significant differences in the development of new infections according to the route of EN administration. Early trophic feeding administered to patients with acute respiratory failure requiring noninvasive ventilation is safe and feasible, and is associated with few dietary and infectious complications in a mortality, setting comparable to similar studies.

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.