RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Following the results of the paediatric early versus late parenteral nutrition in critical illness (PEPaNIC) multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, the new ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN and ESPNIC guidelines recommend to consider withholding parenteral macronutrients for 1 week, while providing micronutrients, in critically ill children if enteral nutrition is insufficient. Critically ill children are suspected to be vulnerable to micronutrient deficiencies due to inadequate enteral nutrition, increased body's demands and excessive losses. Hitherto, micronutrient requirements in PICU are estimated based on recommended daily intakes for healthy children and expert opinion. We aimed to provide an overview of the current practice of micronutrient administration and practical considerations in the three participating centres of the PEPaNIC study, and compare these therapies with the recommendations in the new ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines. METHODS: We describe the current composition and preparation of the prescribed parenteral micronutrients (consisting of vitamins, trace elements and electrolytes) in the three centres (Leuven, Rotterdam and Edmonton) that participated in the PEPaNIC RCT, and compare this per micronutrient with the ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines recommendations. RESULTS: The three centres use a different micronutrient supplementation protocol during the first week of critical illness in children, with substantial differences regarding the amounts administered. Leuven administers commercial vitamins, trace elements and electrolytes in separate infusions both in 4 h. Rotterdam provides commercial vitamins and trace elements simultaneously via 8-h infusion and electrolytes continuously over 24 h. Lastly, Edmonton administers commercial vitamins and institutionally prepared trace elements solutions in 1 h and electrolytes on demand. Comparison with the ESPGHAN/ESPEN/ESPR/CSPEN guidelines yields in differences between the recommendations and the administered amounts, which are most substantial for vitamins. CONCLUSION: The practice of intravenous micronutrient administration differs substantially between the three PEPaNIC centres and in comparison with the current guideline recommendations. This deviation is at least partially explained by the inability to provide all recommended amounts with the currently available commercial products and by the lack of strong evidence supporting these recommendations.