Medical nutrition therapy and clinical outcomes in critically ill adults: a European multinational, prospective observational cohort study (EuroPN).

BACKGROUND: Medical nutrition therapy may be associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay. We wanted to assess nutrition practices in European intensive care units (ICU) and their importance for clinical outcomes. METHODS: Prospective multinational cohort study in patients staying in ICU ≥ 5 days with outcome recorded until day 90. Macronutrient intake from enteral and parenteral nutrition and non-nutritional sources during the first 15 days after ICU admission was compared with targets recommended by ESPEN guidelines. We modeled associations between three categories of daily calorie and protein intake (low: < 10 kcal/kg, < 0.8 g/kg; moderate: 10-20 kcal/kg, 0.8-1.2 g/kg, high: > 20 kcal/kg; > 1.2 g/kg) and the time-varying hazard rates of 90-day mortality or successful weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). RESULTS: A total of 1172 patients with median [Q1;Q3] APACHE II score of 18.5 [13.0;26.0] were included, and 24% died within 90 days. Median length of ICU stay was 10.0 [7.0;16.0] days, and 74% of patients could be weaned from invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients reached on average 83% [59;107] and 65% [41;91] of ESPEN calorie and protein recommended targets, respectively. Whereas specific reasons for ICU admission (especially respiratory diseases requiring IMV) were associated with higher intakes (estimate 2.43 [95% CI: 1.60;3.25] for calorie intake, 0.14 [0.09;0.20] for protein intake), a lack of nutrition on the preceding day was associated with lower calorie and protein intakes (- 2.74 [- 3.28; - 2.21] and - 0.12 [- 0.15; - 0.09], respectively). Compared to a lower intake, a daily moderate intake was associated with higher probability of successful weaning (for calories: maximum HR 4.59 [95% CI: 1.5;14.09] on day 12; for protein: maximum HR 2.60 [1.09;6.23] on day 12), and with a lower hazard of death (for calories only: minimum HR 0.15, [0.05;0.39] on day 19). There was no evidence that a high calorie or protein intake was associated with further outcome improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Calorie intake was mainly provided according to the targets recommended by the active ESPEN guideline, but protein intake was lower. In patients staying in ICU ≥ 5 days, early moderate daily calorie and protein intakes were associated with improved clinical outcomes. Trial registration NCT04143503 , registered on October 25, 2019.

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.

Diabetes-specific enteral nutrition formula in hyperglycemic, mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a prospective, open-label, blind-randomized, multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: Although standard enteral nutrition is universally accepted, the use of disease-specific formulas for hyperglycemic patients is still controversial. This study examines whether a high-protein diabetes-specific formula reduces insulin needs, improves glycemic control and reduces ICU-acquired infection in critically ill, hyperglycemic patients on mechanical ventilation (MV). METHODS: This was a prospective, open-label, randomized (web-based, blinded) study conducted at nine Spanish ICUs. The patient groups established according to the high-protein formula received were: group A, new-generation diabetes-specific formula; group B, standard control formula; group C, control diabetes-specific formula. Inclusion criteria were: expected enteral nutrition ≥5 days, MV, baseline glucose >126 mg/dL on admission or >200 mg/dL in the first 48 h. Exclusion criteria were: APACHE II ≤10, insulin-dependent diabetes, renal or hepatic failure, treatment with corticosteroids, immunosuppressants or lipid-lowering drugs and body mass index ≥40 kg/m(2). The targeted glucose level was 110-150 mg/dL. Glycemic variability was calculated as the standard deviation, glycemic lability index and coefficient of variation. Acquired infections were recorded using published consensus criteria for critically ill patients. Data analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Over a 2-year period, 157 patients were consecutively enrolled (A 52, B 53 and C 52). Compared with the standard control formula, the new formula gave rise to lower insulin requirement (19.1 ± 13.1 vs. 23.7 ± 40.1 IU/day, p <0.05), plasma glucose (138.6 ± 39.1 vs. 146.1 ± 49.9 mg/dL, p <0.01) and capillary blood glucose (146.1 ± 45.8 vs. 155.3 ± 63.6 mg/dL, p <0.001). Compared with the control diabetes-specific formula, only capillary glucose levels were significantly reduced (146.1 ± 45.8 vs. 150.1 ± 41.9, p <0.01). Both specific formulas reduced capillary glucose on ICU day 1 (p <0.01), glucose variability in the first week (p <0.05), and incidences of ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis (p <0.01) or pneumonia (p <0.05) compared with the standard formula. No effects of the nutrition formula were produced on hospital stay or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In these high-risk ICU patients, both diabetes-specific formulas lowered insulin requirements, improved glycemic control and reduced the risk of acquired infections relative to the standard formula. Compared with the control-specific formula, the new-generation formula also improved capillary glycemia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT1233726 .

[Management of parenteral nutrition in intensive care units in Spain]. / Manejo de la nutrición parenteral en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos en España.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: some relevant aspects related to parenteral nutrition in the Spanish ICUs are still unclear. These aspects include: caloric and protein intake, total volume, glycemic control, the type of lipid emulsion used or the comparison of different formulations. Our objective is to know the clinical practice patterns of artificial nutrition therapeutics, particularly of parenteral nutrition in the Spanish ICUs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: twelve representative ICU's participated in a nutrition survey from January to March 2012. The survey was divided in two sections: A) Management of artificial nutritional support in critically ill patients and B) Assessment of a new parenteral nutrition formulation adapted to critically ill patients. The following information was collected: percentage of patients receiving artificial nutrition; availability of enteral formulations; types of lipid emulsions; calories, amino acids and lipids supplied; addition of glutamine, vitamins and trace elements; management of volume and hyperglycemia; and comparative data between patients receiving the new formulation vs. standard formulations: glycemic control, assessment of hepatic function and infectious complications as well as the intake of total calories, proteins, volume and insulin supplied. RESULTS: The average number of hospital beds and ICU beds is 780 and 25 respectively; the average number of patients admitted in the ICU is 950 per year. 49% were medical patients, 31% surgical patients and 20% trauma patients. 59.75% of patients required artificial nutrition (AN), of which, 58.7% required enteral nutrition (EN), 16% total parenteral nutrition (TPN); and 25.3% suplementary parenteral nutrition (SPN). When EN was contraindicated, 83.3% of patients were started on early TPN (24 hours) and if EN was not sufficient, 66.7% were started on SPN within 48 hours. Regarding prescribers usual practice, 50% tried to reduce volume of PN and 100% of them had an insulin infusion protocol. 39% of prescribers recommended high-protein, low-volume and low-glucose TPN; 42% prescribe TPN with SMOF (soybean, MCT, olive and fish oil); and 33% with OOBE (olive oil based emulsion) as lipid emulsion. 92% added glutamine. 60% considered that the new formulation may be indicated for sepsis, trauma, burn patients and MOF (multiple organ failure) and the 30% would use it as a routine therapy at the time of admission. 40% considered that insulin requirements were reduced; 50% claimed better volume management and 60% highlighted the protein/volume ratio. Attending to patient outcome, patients receiving the specific formulation have less affected hepatic function, higher protein intake and lower volume infusion but no significant differences were observed and they required less insulin dosage (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In the twelve ICUs included in the survey, the clinical practice patterns related to parenteral nutrition management are adapted to the guidelines of scientific societies such as the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC), the Spanish Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (SENPE) and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The new formulations designed for critically ill patients may be indicated for these conditions.

Introducción y objetivos: No se sabe con exactitud aspectos de relevancia en nutrición parenteral como aportes calórico-proteicos, volumen total, control de glucemia, tipo de emulsión lipídica o comparación de diferentes fórmulas, en las UCIs españolas. Planteamos como objetivo conocer los patrones de práctica clínica habitual en la terapéutica con nutrición artificial, fundamentalmente parenteral, en dichas UCIs. Material y métodos: Participaron doce UCIs representativas, de enero a marzo de dos mil doce, para la realización de una encuesta nutricional. La encuesta se dividió en dos apartados : A) Manejo del soporte nutricional artificial en el paciente grave y B) Valoración de una nueva fórmula de nutrición parenteral adaptada al paciente grave. Se recogió: porcentaje de pacientes con nutrición artificial; disponibilidad de fórmulas enterales; tipos de emulsiones lipídicas; calorías, aminoácidos y lípidos aportados; adición de glutamina, vitaminas y oligoelementos; manejo del volumen y de la hiperglucemia y datos comparativos de pacientes con la nueva formulación frente a fórmulas de uso habitual: control glucémico, afectación hepática y complicaciones infecciosas, así como aportes de calorías totales, proteínas, volumen e insulina administrada. Resultados: La media de camas hospitalarias es de 780 y de UCI de 25, con una media de ingresos de 950 pacientes/año. Un 49% son pacientes médicos, 31% quirúrgicos y 20% traumatológicos. El 59,75% precisaron nutrición artificial (NA). De ellos, 58,7% nutrición enteral (NE), 16% nutrición parenteral total (NPT) y 25,3% nutrición parenteral complementaria (NPC). Ante NE contraindicada, el 83,3% inicia NPT precoz (24 horas) y ante NE insuficiente el 66,7% inicia NPC en 48 horas. En relación con la práctica habitual de los prescriptores, un 50% intenta reducción de volumen y el 100% dispone de protocolo de infusión de insulina. Un 39% recomiendan NPT hiperproteica, baja en volumen y en glucosa, el 42% con SMOF (Soja, MCT, Oliva, Pescado) y el 33% con EBAO (Emulsiones Basadas en Aceite de Oliva) como emulsión lipídica. El 92% adiciona glutamina. Un 60% considera que la nueva fórmula puede estar indicada en sepsis, trauma, quemados y FMO (Fracaso Multiorgánico) y un 30% la utilizaría de rutina al ingreso. Un 40% considera que disminuye las necesidades de insulina, 50% un mejor manejo del volumen y un 60% destaca la relación proteínas/volumen. Evolutivamente, los pacientes con fórmula específica tienen menor afectación hepática, mayor aporte proteico y menor aporte de volumen, sin diferencias significativas, y precisaron menos dosis de insulina (p = 0,07). Conclusiones: En las doce UCIs seleccionadas, los patrones de práctica clínica en el manejo de la nutrición parenteral se adaptan a las recomendaciones de sociedades científicas como la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC), Sociedad Española de Nutrición Parenteral y Enteral (SENPE) y European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). Las nuevas fórmulas diseñadas para el paciente grave pueden tener indicaciones en estas patologías.

Manejo de la nutrición parenteral en las Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos en España / Management of parenteral nutrition in intensive care units in Spain

Introducción y objetivos: No se sabe con exactitud aspectos de relevancia en nutrición parenteral como aportes calórico-proteicos, volumen total, control de glucemia, tipo de emulsión lipídica o comparación de diferentes fórmulas, en las UCIs españolas. Planteamos como objetivo conocer los patrones de práctica clínica habitual en la terapéutica con nutrición artificial, fundamentalmente parenteral, en dichas UCIs. Material y métodos: Participaron doce UCIs representativas, de enero a marzo de dos mil doce, para la realización de una encuesta nutricional. La encuesta se dividió en dos apartados : A) Manejo del soporte nutricional artificial en el paciente grave y B) Valoración de una nueva fórmula de nutrición parenteral adaptada al paciente grave. Se recogió: porcentaje de pacientes con nutrición artificial; disponibilidad de fórmulas enterales; tipos de emulsiones lipídicas; calorías, aminoácidos y lípidos aportados; adición de glutamina, vitaminas y oligoelementos; manejo del volumen y de la hiperglucemia y datos comparativos de pacientes con la nueva formulación frente a fórmulas de uso habitual: control glucémico, afectación hepática y complicaciones infecciosas, así como aportes de calorías totales, proteínas, volumen e insulina administrada. Resultados: La media de camas hospitalarias es de 780 y de UCI de 25, con una media de ingresos de 950 pacientes/año. Un 49% son pacientes médicos, 31% quirúrgicos y 20% traumatológicos. El 59,75% precisaron nutrición artificial (NA). De ellos, 58,7% nutrición enteral (NE), 16% nutrición parenteral total (NPT) y 25,3% nutrición parenteral complementaria (NPC). Ante NE contraindicada, el 83,3% inicia NPT precoz (24 horas) y ante NE insuficiente el 66,7% inicia NPC en 48 horas. En relación con la práctica habitual de los prescriptores, un 50% intenta reducción de volumen y el 100% dispone de protocolo de infusión de insulina. Un 39% recomiendan NPT hiperproteica, baja en volumen y en glucosa, el 42% con SMOF (Soja, MCT, Oliva, Pescado) y el 33% con EBAO (Emulsiones Basadas en Aceite de Oliva) como emulsión lipídica. El 92% adiciona glutamina. Un 60% considera que la nueva fórmula puede estar indicada en sepsis, trauma, quemados y FMO (Fracaso Multiorgánico) y un 30% la utilizaría de rutina al ingreso. Un 40% considera que disminuye las necesidades de insulina, 50% un mejor manejo del volumen y un 60% destaca la relación proteínas/volumen. Evolutivamente, los pacientes con fórmula específica tienen menor afectación hepática, mayor aporte proteico y menor aporte de volumen, sin diferencias significativas, y precisaron menos dosis de insulina (p = 0,07). Conclusiones: En las doce UCIs seleccionadas, los patrones de práctica clínica en el manejo de la nutrición parenteral se adaptan a las recomendaciones de sociedades científicas como la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC), Sociedad Española de Nutrición Parenteral y Enteral (SENPE) y European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). Las nuevas fórmulas diseñadas para el paciente grave pueden tener indicaciones en estas patologías (AU)

Introduction and objectives: some relevant aspects related to parenteral nutrition in the Spanish ICUs are still unclear. These aspects include: caloric and protein intake, total volume, glycemic control, the type of lipid emulsion used or the comparison of different formulations. Our objective is to know the clinical practice patterns of artificial nutrition therapeutics, particularly of parenteral nutrition in the Spanish ICUs. Material and methods: twelve representative ICU's participated in a nutrition survey from January to March 2012. The survey was divided in two sections: A) Management of artificial nutritional support in critically ill patients and B) Assessment of a new parenteral nutrition formulation adapted to critically ill patients. The following information was collected: percentage of patients receiving artificial nutrition; availability of enteral formulations; types of lipid emulsions; calories, amino acids and lipids supplied; addition of glutamine, vitamins and trace elements; management of volume and hyperglycemia; and comparative data between patients receiving the new formulation vs. standard formulations: glycemic control, assessment of hepatic function and infectious complications as well as the intake of total calories, proteins, volume and insulin supplied. Results: The average number of hospital beds and ICU beds is 780 and 25 respectively; the average number of patients admitted in the ICU is 950 per year. 49% were medical patients, 31% surgical patients and 20% trauma patients. 59.75% of patients required artificial nutrition (AN), of which, 58.7% required enteral nutrition (EN), 16% total parenteral nutrition (TPN); and 25.3% suplementary parenteral nutrition (SPN). When EN was contraindicated, 83.3% of patients were started on early TPN (24 hours) and if EN was not sufficient, 66.7% were started on SPN within 48 hours. Regarding prescribers usual practice, 50% tried to reduce volume of PN and 100% of them had an insulin infusion protocol. 39% of prescribers recommended high-protein, low-volume and low-glucose TPN; 42% prescribe TPN with SMOF (soybean, MCT, olive and fish oil); and 33% with OOBE (olive oil based emulsion) as lipid emulsion. 92% added glutamine. 60% considered that the new formulation may be indicated for sepsis, trauma, burn patients and MOF (multiple organ failure) and the 30% would use it as a routine therapy at the time of admission. 40% considered that insulin requirements were reduced; 50% claimed better volume management and 60% highlighted the protein/volume ratio. Attending to patient outcome, patients receiving the specific formulation have less affected hepatic function, higher protein intake and lower volume infusion but no significant differences were observed and they required less insulin dosage (p = 0.07). Conclusions: In the twelve ICUs included in the survey, the clinical practice patterns related to parenteral nutrition management are adapted to the guidelines of scientific societies such as the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC), the Spanish Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (SENPE) and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The new formulations designed for critically ill patients may be indicated for these conditions (AU)