Enteral nutrition in critically ill patients under vasoactive drug therapy: The NUTRIVAD study.

BACKGROUND: Enteral nutrition (EN) in critically ill patients requiring vasoactive drug (VAD) support is controversial. This study assesses the tolerability and safety of EN in such patients. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in 23 intensive care units (ICUs) over 30 months. Inclusion criteria were a need for VADs and/or mechanic circulatory support (MCS) over a minimum of 48 h, a need for ≥48 h of mechanical ventilation, an estimated life expectancy >72 h, and ≥72 h of ICU stay. Patients with refractory shock were excluded. EN was performed according to established protocols during which descriptive, daily hemodynamic and efficacy, and safety data were collected. An independent research group conducted the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Of 200 patients included, 30 (15%) required MCS and 145 (73%) met early multiorgan dysfunction criteria. Mortality was 24%. Patients needed a mean dose of norepinephrine in the first 48 h of 0.71 mcg/kg/min (95% CI, 0.63-0.8) targeting a mean arterial pressure of 68 mm Hg (95% CI, 67-70) during the first 48 h. EN was started 34 h (95% CI, 31-37) after ICU admission. Mean energy and protein delivered by EN/patient/day were 1159 kcal (95% CI, 1098-1220) and 55.6 g (95% CI, 52.4-58.7), respectively. Daily energy balance during EN/patient/day was -432 (95% CI, -496 to -368). One hundred and fifty-four (77%) patients experienced EN-related complications. However, severe complications, such as mesenteric ischemia, were recorded in only one (0.5%) patient. CONCLUSION: EN in these patients seems feasible, safe, and unrelated to serious complications. Reaching the energy target only through EN is difficult.

Enteral Nutrition in Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation in a Prone Position.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with mechanical ventilation in the prone position (PP) could have an increased risk for feeding intolerance. However, the available evidence supporting this hypothesis is limited and contradictory. OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility and efficacy of enteral nutrition (EN) support and its associated complications in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in PP. METHODS: Prospective observational study including 34 mechanically ventilated intensive care patients who were turned to the prone position over a 3-year period. End points related to efficacy and safety of EN support were studied. RESULTS: In total, more than 1200 patients were admitted to the intensive care unit over a period of 3 years. Of these, 34 received mechanical ventilation in PP. The mean days under EN were 24.7 ± 12.3. Mean days under EN in the supine position were significantly higher than in PP (21.1 vs 3.6; P < .001), but there were no significant differences in gastric residual volume adjusted per day of EN (126.6 vs 189.2; P = .054) as well as diet volume ratio (94.1% vs 92.8%; P = .21). No significant differences in high gastric residual events per day of EN (0.06 vs 0.09; P = .39), vomiting per day of EN (0.016 vs 0.03; P = .53), or diet regurgitation per day of EN (0 vs 0.04; P = .051) were found. CONCLUSIONS: EN in critically ill patients with severe hypoxemia receiving mechanical ventilation in PP is feasible, safe, and not associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal complications. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.