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.

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.

Correction of Hyponatremia May Be a Treatment Stratification Biomarker: A Two-Stage Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Changes in serum sodium concentration ([Na⁺]serum) can permit evaluation of the treatment effect of vasopressin antagonists (vaptans) in patients with worsening heart failure (HF) or cirrhotic ascites; that is, they may act as a treatment stratification biomarker. A two-stage systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out and contextualized by experts in fluid resuscitation and translational pharmacology (registration ID in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42017051440). Meta-analysis of aggregated dichotomous outcomes was performed. Pooled estimates for correction of hyponatremia (normalization or an increase in [Na⁺]serum of at least 3⁻5 mEq/L) under treatment with vaptans (Stage 1) and for clinical outcomes in both worsening HF (rehospitalization and/or death) and cirrhotic ascites (ascites worsening) when correction of hyponatremia is achieved (Stage 2) were calculated. The body of evidence was assessed. Correction of hyponatremia was achieved under vaptans (odds ratio (OR)/95% confidence interval (95% CI)/I²/number of studies (n): 7.48/4.95⁻11.30/58%/15). Clinical outcomes in both worsening HF and cirrhotic ascites improved when correction of hyponatremia was achieved (OR/95% CI/I²/n: 0.51/0.26⁻0.99/52%/3). Despite the appropriateness of the study design, however, there are too few trials to consider that correction of hyponatremia is a treatment stratification biomarker. Patients with worsening HF or with cirrhotic ascites needing treatment with vaptans, have better clinical outcomes when correction of hyponatremia is achieved. However, the evidence base needs to be enlarged to propose formally correction of hyponatremia as a new treatment stratification biomarker. Markers for use with drugs are needed to improve outcomes related to the use of medicines.