Enteral nutrition in septic shock: a call for a paradigm shift.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to identify contemporary evidence evaluating enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, outline risk factors for enteral feeding intolerance (EFI), describe the conundrum of initiating enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, appraise current EFI definitions, and identify bedside monitors for guiding enteral nutrition therapy. RECENT FINDINGS: The NUTRIREA-2 and NUTRIREA-3 trial results have better informed the dose of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with circulatory shock. In both trials, patients with predominant septic shock randomized to receive early standard-dose nutrition had more gastrointestinal complications. Compared to other contemporary RCTs that included patients with circulatory shock, patients in the NUTRIREA-2 and NUTRIREA-3 trials had higher bowel ischemia rates, were sicker, and received full-dose enteral nutrition while receiving high baseline dose of vasopressor. These findings suggest severity of illness, vasopressor dose, and enteral nutrition dose impact outcomes. SUMMARY: The provision of early enteral nutrition preserves gut barrier functions; however, these benefits are counterbalanced by potential complications of introducing luminal nutrients into a hypo-perfused gut, including bowel ischemia. Findings from the NUTRIREA2 and NUTRIREA-3 trials substantiate a 'less is more' enteral nutrition dose strategy during the early acute phase of critical illness. In the absence of bedside tools to guide the initiation and advancement of enteral nutrition in patients with septic shock, the benefit of introducing enteral nutrition on preserving gut barrier function must be weighed against the risk of harm by considering dose of vasopressor, dose of enteral nutrition, and severity of illness.

The Efficacy of Glutamine Supplementation in Severe Adult Burn Patients: A Systematic Review With Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence supporting glutamine supplementation in severe adult burn patients has created a state of uncertainty due to the variability in the treatment effect reported across small and large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to systematically review the effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality in severe adult burn patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to February 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs evaluating the effect of enteral or IV glutamine supplementation alone in severe adult burn patients were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, burn injury characteristics, description of the intervention between groups, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) for mortality and infectious complications were performed. Ten RCTs (1,577 patients) were included. We observed no significant effect of glutamine supplementation on overall mortality (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; p = 0.21), infectious complications (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09; p = 0.18), or other secondary outcomes. In subgroup analyses, we observed no significant effects based on administration route or burn severity. We did observe a significant subgroup effect between single and multicenter RCTs in which glutamine significantly reduced mortality and infectious complications in singe-center RCTs but not in multicenter RCTs. However, TSA showed that the pooled results of single-center RCTs were type 1 errors and further trials would be futile. CONCLUSIONS: Glutamine supplementation, regardless of administration, does not appear to improve clinical outcomes in severely adult burned patients.

The impact of higher protein dosing on outcomes in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a post hoc analysis of the EFFORT protein trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on low-quality evidence, current nutrition guidelines recommend the delivery of high-dose protein in critically ill patients. The EFFORT Protein trial showed that higher protein dose is not associated with improved outcomes, whereas the effects in critically ill patients who developed acute kidney injury (AKI) need further evaluation. The overall aim is to evaluate the effects of high-dose protein in critically ill patients who developed different stages of AKI. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the EFFORT Protein trial, we investigated the effect of high versus usual protein dose (≥ 2.2 vs. ≤ 1.2 g/kg body weight/day) on time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) and 60-day mortality and in different subgroups in critically ill patients with AKI as defined by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria within 7 days of ICU admission. The associations of protein dose with incidence and duration of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) were also investigated. RESULTS: Of the 1329 randomized patients, 312 developed AKI and were included in this analysis (163 in the high and 149 in the usual protein dose group). High protein was associated with a slower time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8) and higher 60-day mortality (relative risk 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.8). Effect modification was not statistically significant for any subgroup, and no subgroups suggested a beneficial effect of higher protein, although the harmful effect of higher protein target appeared to disappear in patients who received kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Protein dose was not significantly associated with the incidence of AKI and KRT or duration of KRT. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with AKI, high protein may be associated with worse outcomes in all AKI stages. Recommendation of higher protein dosing in AKI patients should be carefully re-evaluated to avoid potential harmful effects especially in patients who were not treated with KRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03160547) on May 17th 2017.

Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review: A Concise Review.

OBJECTIVES: Concise definitive review of how to read and critically appraise a systematic review. DATA SOURCES: None. STUDY SELECTION: Current literature describing the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. DATA EXTRACTION: Best practices for conducting, reporting, and appraising systematic review were summarized. DATA SYNTHESIS: A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant original research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Critical appraisal methods address both the credibility (quality of conduct) and rate the confidence in the quality of summarized evidence from a systematic review. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool is a widely used practical tool to appraise the conduct of a systematic review. Confidence in estimates of effect is determined by assessing for risk of bias, inconsistency of results, imprecision, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are transparent and reproducible summaries of research and conclusions drawn from them are only as credible and reliable as their development process and the studies which form the systematic review. Applying evidence from a systematic review to patient care considers whether the results can be directly applied, whether all important outcomes have been considered, and if the benefits are worth potential harms and costs.

IV Vitamin C in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of IV vitamin C on outcomes in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials testing IV vitamin C in critically ill patients. DATA ABSTRACTION: Two independent reviewers abstracted patient characteristics, treatment details, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies involving 2,490 patients were identified. Compared with placebo, IV vitamin C administration is associated with a trend toward reduced overall mortality (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.06; test for heterogeneity I2 = 6%). High-dose IV vitamin C was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.96; p = 0.03), whereas low-dose IV vitamin C had no effect (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.07; p = 0.46; test for subgroup differences, p = 0.14). IV vitamin C monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83; p = 0.006), whereas there was no effect with IV vitamin C combined therapy. No trial reported an increase in adverse events related to IV vitamin C. CONCLUSIONS: IV vitamin C administration appears safe and may be associated with a trend toward reduction in overall mortality. High-dose IV vitamin C monotherapy may be associated with improved overall mortality, and further randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Early versus delayed enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated patients with circulatory shock: a nested cohort analysis of an international multicenter, pragmatic clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world evidence on the timing and efficacy of enteral nutrition (EN) practices in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with circulatory shock is limited. We hypothesized early EN (EEN), as compared to delayed EN (DEN), is associated with improved clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with circulatory shock. METHODS: We analyzed a dataset from an international, multicenter, pragmatic randomized clinical trial (RCT) evaluating protein dose in ICU patients. Data were collected from ICU admission, and EEN was defined as initiating < 48 h from ICU admission and DEN > 48 h. We identified MV patients in circulatory shock to evaluate the association between the timing of EN initiation and clinical outcomes. The regression analysis model controlled for age, mNUTRIC score, APACHE II score, sepsis, and Site. RESULTS: We included 626 patients, from 52 ICUs in 14 countries. Median age was 60 years [18-93], 55% had septic shock, 99% received norepinephrine alone, 91% received EN alone, and 50.3% were randomized to a usual protein dose. Forty-two percent of EEN patients had persistent organ dysfunction syndrome plus death at day 28, compared to 53% in the DEN group (p = 0.04). EEN was associated with more ICU-free days (9.3 ± 9.2 vs. 5.7 ± 7.9, p = 0.0002), more days alive and free of vasopressors (7.1 ± 3.1 vs. 6.3 ± 3.2, p = 0.007), and shorter duration of MV among survivors (9.8 ± 10.9 vs. 13.8 ± 14.5, p = 0.0002). This trend was no longer observed in the adjusted analysis. There were no differences in ICU/60-day mortality or feeding intolerance rates between groups. CONCLUSION: In MV patients with circulatory shock, EEN, as compared to DEN, was associated with improved clinical outcomes, but no longer when adjusting for illness severity. RCTs comparing the efficacy of EEN to DEN in MV patients with circulatory shock are warranted.

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Clinical Consequence of Enteral Feeding Intolerance in the Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill: An Analysis of a Multicenter, Multiyear Database.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of enteral feed intolerance, identify factors associated with enteral feed intolerance, and assess the relationship between enteral feed intolerance and key nutritional and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Analysis of International Nutrition Survey database collected prospectively from 2007 to 2014. SETTING: Seven-hundred eighty-five ICUs from around the world. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adults with ICU stay greater than or equal to 72 hours and received enteral nutrition during the first 12 ICU days. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: We defined enteral feed intolerance as interrupted feeding due to one of the following reasons: high gastric residual volumes, increased abdominal girth, distension, subjective discomfort, emesis, or diarrhea. The current analysis included 15,918 patients. Of these, 4,036 (24%) had at least one episode of enteral feed intolerance. The enteral feed intolerance rate increased from 1% on day 1 to 6% on days 4 and 5 and declined daily thereafter. After controlling for site and patient covariates, burn (odds ratio 1.46; 95% CIs, 1.07-1.99), gastrointestinal (odds ratio 1.45; 95% CI, 1.27-1.66), and sepsis (odds ratio 1.34; 95% CI, 1.17-1.54) admission diagnoses were more likely to develop enteral feed intolerance, as compared to patients with respiratory-related admission diagnosis. enteral feed intolerance patients received about 10% less enteral nutrition intake, as compared to patients without enteral feed intolerance after controlling for important covariates including severity of illness. Enteral feed intolerance patients had fewer ventilator-free days and longer ICU length of stay time to discharge alive (all p < 0.0001). The daily mortality hazard rate increased by a factor of 1.5 (1.4-1.6; p < 0.0001) once enteral feed intolerance occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral feed intolerance occurs frequently during enteral nutrition delivery in the critically ill. Burn and gastrointestinal patients had the highest risk of developing enteral feed intolerance. Enteral feed intolerance is associated with lower enteral nutrition delivery and worse clinical outcomes. Identification, prevention, and optimal management of enteral feed intolerance may improve nutrition delivery and clinical outcomes in important "at risk" populations.

Enteral nutrition in circulatory shock: friend or foe?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Circulatory shock is associated with reduced splanchnic blood flow and impaired gut epithelial barrier function (EBF). Early enteral nutrition (EN) has been shown in animal models to preserve EBF. There are limited human data informing early EN in circulatory shock and critical care nutrition guidelines provide disparate recommendations regarding the optimal timing and dose. The purpose of this review is to describe the harms and benefits of early EN in circulatory shock by identifying and appraising recent human data. RECENT FINDINGS: The cumulative risk of nonocclusive bowel ischemia and necrosis in patients with circulatory shock is no higher than 0.3% across observational and randomized controlled trial-level data, and whether the risk is increased by EN delivery remains uncertain. Observational data suggest that early EN in circulatory shock is associated with improved clinical outcomes but data from robust randomized controlled trials remain equivocal, so the optimal timing and dose remain unknown. SUMMARY: Based on the best available data, initiating restrictive dose EN into the stomach after initial resuscitation in patients with circulatory shock does not appear to be harmful. In fact, early EN may preserve EBF and improve clinical outcomes.

The effect of higher versus lower protein delivery in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal protein dose in critical illness is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of higher versus lower protein delivery (with similar energy delivery between groups) on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically ill patients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD -3.44% per week, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.90; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients, a higher daily protein delivery was not associated with any improvement in clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Larger, and more definitive RCTs are needed to confirm the effect of muscle loss attenuation associated with higher protein delivery. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021237530.

Fiber in the ICU: Should it Be a Regular Part of Feeding?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the controversy of fiber use in the current critical care nutrition guidelines; review the effect of fiber on the gut microbiota in the critically ill; and examine the data on fiber and outcomes in the intensive care setting. RECENT FINDINGS: Fiber is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of colonic health and nutrition support. In critical illness there is a shift toward gut dysbiosis and immune dysregulation. Through fermentation and the generation of short-chain fatty acids, fiber has a role in maintaining intestinal homeostasis, immune function, and supporting commensal bacteria. In contrast to fermentable fiber, recent animal models suggest that non-fermentable fiber can also favorably alter intestinal homeostasis in a mechanism distinct from short chain fatty acids. In the critically ill, RCTs and meta-analyses suggest that soluble and mixed fiber supplemented enteral nutrition can reduce diarrhea and is well tolerated. Based on limited data, there may be benefits in reducing length of hospital stay, certain infections, and glucose metabolism. Nonetheless, the role of fiber enriched nutrition in critically ill patients is controversial as evident in the conflicting guidelines. Despite shortcomings in the literature, soluble and mixed fiber supplemented enteral nutrition is safe and beneficial in most hemodynamically stable intensive care patients. More research is necessary to determine optimal fiber composition.

When Pandemics Collide: the Interplay of Obesity and COVID-19.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. In addition to those with advanced age and co-morbidities such as heart disease or cancer, obese individuals have also had very high rates of hospitalization, critical illness, need for ventilator support, as well as mortality. A number of factors associated with obesity have led to devastating consequences as these two pandemics have interacted. RECENT FINDINGS: Obese individuals through a combination of structural and cellular level changes have greater risk of ischemic heart disease, diabetes, cancer, and respiratory disease, which are themselves risk-factors for acquiring COVID-19 disease. These structural changes also result in increased intra-abdominal and intra-thoracic pressure as well as a restrictive lung physiology that leads to reduction in total lung capacity, functional residual capacity, and increase in airway hyper-reactivity. Adipose tissue is also impacted in obese individuals leading to local as well as systemic inflammation, which can contribute to increased release of free fatty acids and systemic insulin resistance. Additionally, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 and dipeptidyl peptidase 4, which act as receptors for SARS-CoV-2 are also significantly increased in obese individuals. The present manuscript reviews these structural, immune, and molecular changes associated with obesity that make obese individuals more vulnerable to acquiring severe COVID-19 and more challenging to manage associated complications.

Intermittent versus continuous feeding in critically ill adults.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Early enteral nutrition is recommended in critically ill adult patients. The optimal method of administering enteral nutrition remains unknown. Continuous enteral nutrition administration in critically ill patients remains the most common practice worldwide; however, its practice has recently been called into question in favor of intermittent enteral nutrition administration, where volume is infused multiple times per day. This review will outline the key differences between continuous and intermittent enteral nutrition, describe the metabolic responses to continuous and intermittent enteral nutrition administration and outline recent studies comparing continuous with intermittent enteral nutrition administration on outcomes in critically ill adults. RECENT FINDINGS: In separate studies, healthy humans and critically ill patients receiving intermittent nutrition (infused over 3 h) had improved whole body protein balance from negative to positive. These studies did not have an isonitrogenous control group. A randomized controlled trial of intermittent bolus versus continuous enteral nutrition in healthy humans found that intermittent bolus feeding increased mesenteric arterial blood flow, increased insulin and peptide YY and reduced blood glucose concentration. A randomized controlled trial comparing intermittent bolus to continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill patients did not demonstrate clinically relevant differences in glycemic variability, insulin use or tube feeding volume or caloric intake between the two groups. SUMMARY: Studies in healthy humans suggest that intermittent nutrient administration, as opposed to continuous, improves whole body protein synthesis. Unfortunately, similarly designed studies are lacking for critically ill patients. Future studies evaluating the impact of intermittent versus continuous nutrition administration on critical care outcomes should take into account factors such as protein quantity, protein quality and delivery route (enteral and/or parenteral). Until further studies are conducted in critically ill patients, a recommendation for or against intermittent nutrition delivery cannot be made.

The gut in trauma.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to describe established and emerging mechanisms of gut injury and dysfunction in trauma, describe emerging strategies to improve gut dysfunction, detail the effect of trauma on the gut microbiome, and describe the gut-brain connection in traumatic brain injury. RECENT FINDINGS: Newer data suggest intraluminal contents, pancreatic enzymes, and hepatobiliary factors disrupt the intestinal mucosal layer. These mechanisms serve to perpetuate the inflammatory response leading to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). To date, therapies to mitigate acute gut dysfunction have included enteral nutrition and immunonutrition; emerging therapies aimed to intestinal mucosal layer disruption, however, include protease inhibitors such as tranexamic acid, parenteral nutrition-supplemented bombesin, and hypothermia. Clinical trials to demonstrate benefit in humans are needed before widespread applications can be recommended. SUMMARY: Despite resuscitation, gut dysfunction promotes distant organ injury. In addition, postresuscitation nosocomial and iatrogenic 'hits' exaggerate the immune response, contributing to MODS. This was a provocative concept, suggesting infectious and noninfectious causes of inflammation may trigger, heighten, and perpetuate an inflammatory response culminating in MODS and death. Emerging evidence suggests posttraumatic injury mechanisms, such as intestinal mucosal disruption and shifting of the gut microbiome to a pathobiome. In addition, traumatic brain injury activates the gut-brain axis and increases intestinal permeability.