Outcome of glycemic control in critically ill patients receiving enteral formulas.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stress hyperglycemia is a common condition in critically ill patients. Inappropriate nutritional supplementation may worsen blood glucose control in these patients. The present study aimed to investigate the outcome of blood glucose control status when using various enteral formulas. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study was conducted at the intensive care unit of a tertiary medical center in central Taiwan. Patients meeting the following inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study: age ≥20 years, respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, and two consecutive blood glucose concentration measurements of ≥180 mg/dL. Demographic data, blood glucose samples, and hospital mortality were collected for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 4,604 blood glucose samples from 48 patients were analyzed. Results demonstrated no significant difference in mortality rate or blood glucose control between patients fed semi-elemental formulas and those fed polymer formulas. Serum HbA1C of <7.5% was a risk factor for hospital mortality (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.89). Enteral formulas containing less carbohydrate were associated with better blood glucose control. CONCLUSIONS: No significant difference in the outcome of blood glucose control was observed between patients fed semi-elemental formula and those fed polymer formula. To achieve better blood glucose control in critically ill patients, formulas with lower carbohydrate content should be considered.

Full Versus Trophic Feeds in Critically Ill Adults with High and Low Nutritional Risk Scores: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Although energy intake might be associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, it remains unclear whether full or trophic feeding is suitable for critically ill patients with high or low nutrition risk. We conducted a prospective study to determine which feeding energy intakes were associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with high or low nutrition risk. This was an investigator-initiated, single center, single blind, randomized controlled trial. Critically ill patients were allocated to either high or low nutrition risk based on their Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill score, and then randomized to receive either the full or the trophic feeding. The feeding procedure was administered for six days. No significant differences were observed in in-hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortalities, the length of ventilator dependency, or ICU and hospital stay among the four groups. There were no associations between energy and protein intakes and in-hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortalities in any of the four groups. However, protein intake was positively associated with the length of hospital stay and ventilator dependency in patients with low nutrition risk receiving trophic feeding. Full or trophic feeding in critically ill patients showed no associations with clinical outcomes, regardless of nutrition risk.

Targeted Energy Intake Is the Important Determinant of Clinical Outcomes in Medical Critically Ill Patients with High Nutrition Risk.

The clinical conditions of critically ill patients are highly heterogeneous; therefore, nutrient requirements should be personalized based on the patient's nutritional status. However, nutritional status is not always considered when evaluating a patient's nutritional therapy in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to assess the effect of ICU patients' nutrition risk status on the association between energy intake and clinical outcomes (i.e., hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality). The nutrition risk of critically ill patients was classified as either high- or low-nutrition risk using the modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill score. There were 559 (75.3%) patients in the high nutrition risk group, while 183 patients were in the low nutrition risk group. Higher mean energy intake was associated with lower hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality rates in patients with high nutrition risk; while there were no significant associations between mean energy intake and clinical outcomes in patients with low nutrition risk. Further examination of the association between amount of energy intake and clinical outcomes showed that patients with high nutrition risk who consumed at least 800 kcal/day had significantly lower hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality rates. Although patients with low nutrition risk did not benefit from high energy intake, patients with high nutrition risk are suggested to consume at least 800 kcal/day in order to reduce their mortality rate in the medical ICU.

Optimal Energy Delivery, Rather than the Implementation of a Feeding Protocol, May Benefit Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients.

Malnutrition is common in intensive care units (ICU), and volume based feeding protocols have been proposed to increase nutrient delivery. However, the volume based approach compared to trophic feeding has not been proven entirely successful in critically ill patients. Our study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes both before and after the implementation of the feeding protocol, and to also evaluate the effects of total energy delivery on outcomes in these patients. We retrospectively collected all patient data, one year before and after the implementation of the volume-based feeding protocol, in the ICU at Taichung Veterans General Hospital. Daily actual energy intake from enteral nutritional support was recorded from the day of ICU admission until either the 7th day of ICU stay, or the day of discharge from the ICU. The energy achievement rate (%) was calculated as: (actual energy intake/estimated energy requirement) × 100%. Two-hundred fourteen patients were enrolled before the implementation of the volume-based feeding protocol (pre-FP group), while 198 patients were enrolled after the implementation of the volume-based feeding protocol (FP group). Although patients in the FP group had significantly higher actual energy intakes and achievement rates when compared with the patients in the pre-FP group, there was no significant difference in mortality rate between the two groups. Comparing survivors and non-survivors from both groups, an energy achievement rate of less than 65% was associated with an increased mortality rate after adjusting for potential confounders (odds ratio, 1.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.47). The implementation of the feeding protocol could improve energy intake for critically ill patients, however it had no beneficial effects on reducing the ICU mortality rate. Receiving at least 65% of their energy requirements is the main key point for improving clinical outcomes in patients.