Severity of illness influences the efficacy of enteral feeding route on clinical outcomes in patients with critical illness

The Japanese Critical Care Nutrition Guideline 2024

Nutrition therapy is important in the management of critically ill patients and is continuously evolving as new evidence emerges. The Japanese Critical Care Nutrition Guideline 2024 (JCCNG 2024) is specific to Japan and is the latest set of clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical care that was revised from JCCNG 2016 by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine. An English version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese version. These guidelines were developed to help health care providers understand and provide nutrition therapy that will improve the outcomes of children and adults admitted to intensive care units or requiring intensive care, regardless of the disease. The intended users of these guidelines are all healthcare professionals involved in intensive care, including those who are not familiar with nutrition therapy. JCCNG 2024 consists of 37 clinical questions and 24 recommendations, covering immunomodulation therapy, nutrition therapy for special conditions, and nutrition therapy for children. These guidelines were developed in accordance with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system by experts from various healthcare professionals related to nutrition therapy and/or critical care. All GRADE-based recommendations, good practice statements (GPS), future research questions, and answers to background questions were finalized by consensus using the modified Delphi method. Strong recommendations for adults include early enteral nutrition (EN) within 48 h and the provision of pre/synbiotics. Weak recommendations for adults include the use of a nutrition protocol, EN rather than parenteral nutrition, the provision of higher protein doses, post-pyloric EN, continuous EN, omega-3 fatty acid-enriched EN, the provision of probiotics, and indirect calorimetry use. Weak recommendations for children include early EN within 48 h, bolus EN, and energy/protein-dense EN formulas. A nutritional assessment is recommended by GPS for both adults and children. JCCNG 2024 will be disseminated through educational activities mainly by the JCCNG Committee at various scientific meetings and seminars. Since studies on nutritional treatment for critically ill patients are being reported worldwide, these guidelines will be revised in 4 to 6 years. We hope that these guidelines will be used in clinical practice for critically ill patients and in future research.

Naso-intestinal versus gastric tube for enteral nutrition in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A systematic appraisal of the comparative efficacy and safety profiles of naso-intestinal tube versus gastric tube feeding in the context of enteral nutrition for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients is imperative. Such an evaluation is essential to inform clinical practice, ensuring that the chosen method of nutritional support is both optimal and safe for this patient population.

METHODS

We executed an exhaustive search across PubMed et al. databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that scrutinize the role of naso-intestinal and gastric tubes for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients up to May 30, 2024. The process of study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction was conducted independently by two researchers. RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included 8 RCTs, published between 1992 and 2018, encompassing a total of 676 MV patients. The results indicated that naso-intestinal tube feeding, compared to gastric tube feeding, was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) [Risk Ratio (RR) = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.52, 0.92)] and gastric retention (RR = 0.11, 95% CI (0.04, 0.28)). No statistically significant differences were observed in the incidence of aspiration (RR = 0.93, 95% CI (0.35, 2.50)) vomiting (RR = 0.70, 95% CI (0.23, 2.08)), abdominal distension (RR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.29, 2.63)), or diarrhea (RR = 1.10, 95% CI (0.77, 1.55)).

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence indicates that naso-intestinal tube feeding is efficacious in lowering the incidence of VAP and gastric retention among MV patients, without a corresponding escalation in the risk of adverse events, including aspiration, vomiting, abdominal distension, and diarrhea. These insights significantly augment the existing corpus of knowledge pertaining to the optimization of enteral nutrition strategies for patients on mechanical ventilation.

Transpyloric Tube Placement Shortens Time to Full Feeding in Left Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia

BACKGROUND

Nutritional complications have an impact in both short- and long-term morbidity of patients with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH). We aimed to compare time to full enteral tube feeding depending on route -gastric (GT) or transpyloric (TPT)- in newborns with left CDH (L-CDH).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of L-CDH patients admitted to a referral tertiary care NICU between January 2007 and December 2014. Lethal chromosomal abnormalities and death before initiation of enteral nutrition were exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

37 patients were fed through GT, 46 by TPT. TPT children took 11.0 (6.8) days to reach full enteral tube feeding and spent 16.6 (8.1) days on parenteral nutrition vs 16.8 (14.7) days (p = 0.041) and 22.7 (13.5) days (p = 0.020) of GT patients. TPT children had 3.9 (2.4) days of fasting due to GI issues and 20% had episodes of decreased rates of enteral nutrition for extra-GI complications vs 11.4 (11.1) days (p = 0.028) and 49% (p = 0.006). According to the best fitting model (R2 0.383, p < 0.001), the TPT-group achieved full enteral feeding 8.4 days earlier than the GT-group (95% CI -14.76 to - 2.02 days), after adjustment by severity of illness during the first days, o/e LHR_liver and class of diaphragmatic defect. There were no differences in growth outcomes and length of stay between survivors of GT and TPT groups.

CONCLUSION

TPT shortens time to full enteral nutrition, especially in the most severe L-CDH patients. We propose that placement of a TPT at the end of the surgical repair procedure should be considered, especially in higher-risk patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Treatment study, Level III. Retrospective comparative, case-control study.

Development and validation of a predictive model for feeding intolerance in intensive care unit patients with sepsis

BACKGROUND

Feeding intolerance in patients with sepsis is associated with a lower enteral nutrition (EN) intake and worse clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a predictive model for enteral feeding intolerance in the intensive care unit patients with sepsis.

METHODS

In this dual-center, retrospective, case-control study, a total of 195 intensive care unit patients with sepsis were enrolled from June 2018 to June 2020. Data of 124 patients for 27 clinical indicators from one hospital were used to train the model, and data from 71 patients from another hospital were used to assess the external predictive performance. The predictive models included logistic regression, naive Bayesian, random forest, gradient boosting tree, and deep learning (multilayer artificial neural network) models.

RESULTS

Eighty-six (44.1%) patients were diagnosed with enteral feeding intolerance. The deep learning model achieved the best performance, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.82 (95% confidence interval = 0.74-0.90) and 0.79 (95% confidence interval = 0.68-0.89) in the training and external sets, respectively. The deep learning model showed good calibration; based on the decision curve analysis, the model's clinical benefit was considered useful. Lower respiratory tract infection was the most important contributing factor, followed by peptide EN and shock.

CONCLUSIONS

The new prediction model based on deep learning can effectively predict enteral feeding intolerance in intensive care unit patients with sepsis. Simple clinical information such as infection site, nutrient type, and septic shock can be useful in stratifying a septic patient's risk of EN intolerance.

Should I Start With A Postpyloric Enteral Nutrition Modality?

Nutrition therapy is a key element in the management of malnourished and critically ill patients. Although many aspects of enteral nutrition (EN) have been well defined by research, with clear recommendations by 3 major society guidelines, EN delivery method remains a topic for debate. The goal of this manuscript is to concisely review gastric vs postpyloric enteral feeding in critically ill adult patients and provide a set of recommendations to individualize EN delivery method based on patient characteristics and specific needs.

Pilot Study to Investigate Enteral Feeding Practices and the Incidence of Underfeeding Among Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients at a Specialist Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition (EN) is an essential therapeutic intervention. Many studies internationally have reviewed feeding practices in intensive care units (ICUs) and recorded the incidence of underfeeding in these settings, yet none were performed in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia. The purpose of the study is to assess the adequacy of EN delivery and investigate the enteral feeding practices in the ICU at a specialized tertiary care hospital in Saudi Arabia.

METHODS

In this observational study, we prospectively monitored energy and protein delivery for 6 consecutive days in critically ill patients. Malnutrition was assessed by Nutrition Risk Screening (NRS-2002) scores. Underfeeding was identified by comparing the intake against the calculated requirements. Patients were categorized into early and late EN starters to investigate whether the time of EN initiation impacts the cumulative nutrition intake.

RESULTS

This study included 43 patients. About 44% (19 of 43) of the patients were malnourished on admission to ICU, and the prevalence of underfeeding was >90%. The median cumulative intake of energy and protein was 39% and 31% of the estimated requirements, respectively. Patients who started early EN had statistically higher cumulative energy and protein intake (P-value = .00). Patients treated with inotropes received less energy and protein compared with those who did not receive inotropes (P-value = .00). Higher NRS-2002 score was associated with fewer ventilation-free hours (r = -0.369, P-value = .045).

CONCLUSION

Protein underfeeding remains a significant problem in ICU settings. The time of EN initiation plays a major role in determining when the nutrition requirements will be met. Therefore, it is crucial to implement effective feeding protocols to ensure early initiation of EN when permissible.

[Efficacy and safety of early physical therapy for acute gastrointestinal injury during mechanical ventilation in patients with sepsis: a randomized controlled pilot trial]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the therapeutic effect and safety of early physical therapy for acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) in septic patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the ICU of a tertiary teaching hospital from May, 2017 to March, 2018. The patients diagnosed with sepsis complicated by AGI during mechanical ventilation were recruited and block-randomized into intervention group and control group. Both groups received standard therapy of sepsis, and the patients in the intervention group also received physical therapy as soon as they were hemodynamically stable. The outcome measures included the recovery of AGI, ICU mortality, duration and outcomes of mechanical ventilation and the length of ICU stay.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were initially included, and 34 of them completed the study, including 16 in the intervention group and 18 in the control group. After physical rehabilitation, the number of patients with a cure of AGI did not significantly differ between the two group (P > 0.05). Nonetheless, the reduction of AGI scores after the treatments differed significantly between the intervention group and the control group (-1.9±2.1 vs 0.9± 1.6, P < 0.05). No significant differences were found between the two groups in ICU mortality, duration and outcomes of mechanical ventilation, or the length of ICU stay (P > 0.05). In the intervention group, the incidence of exercise-related adverse events was 3.33%, and severe organ injury or death occurred in none of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Early rehabilitation therapy does not reduce the incidence of AGI but can lower AGI scores and alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with sepsis during mechanical ventilation. The results still await further verification by welldesigned multicenter clinical trials with large sample sizes.

Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis of Patient-Centered Outcomes, Comparing International Guideline-Recommended Enteral Protein Delivery With Usual Care

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend that protein be administered enterally to critically ill patients at doses between 1.2 and 2 g/kg per day Observational data indicate that patients frequently receive less protein. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate patient-centered outcomes with guideline-recommended enteral protein compared with usual care.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed of randomized controlled trials including critically ill adult patients provided predominately enteral nutrition with mean protein at ≥1.2 g/kg per day (intervention) and <1.2 g/kg per day (comparator). Random-effects models were applied for outcomes reported in ≥3 trials.

RESULTS

Of 1375 abstracts, 69 full-text articles were reviewed, and 6 trials meet the inclusion criteria, including 511 patients. The intervention group received a mean (SD) of 1.3 (0.08) g/kg per day, and the comparator group received 0.75 (0.15) g/kg per day protein. Insufficient data were available for meta-analyses on the primary outcome (muscle mass or strength). According to our meta-analyses, mortality at 28 days (5 studies) (risk ratio 0.92 [95% Cl 0.63-1.35], P = .66) and the durations of intensive care unit (6 studies) and hospital admission (4 studies) were similar between the intervention and comparator, with some uncertainty due to sample sizes and heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

There are insufficient data to conclude whether protein provision within the current international guideline recommendations improves outcomes. In a limited dataset, enteral protein intakes near the lower level of current recommendations do not appear to reduce admission duration or mortality when compared with usual care in critically ill.

Enteral tolerance in critically ill patients

Enteral nutrition (EN) can maintain the structure and function of the gastrointestinal mucosa better than parenteral nutrition. In critically ill patients, EN must be discontinued or interrupted, if gastrointestinal complications, particularly vomiting and bowel movement disorders, do not resolve with appropriate management. To avoid such gastrointestinal complications, EN should be started as soon as possible with a small amount of EN first and gradually increased. EN itself may also promote intestinal peristalsis. The measures to decrease the risk of reflux and aspiration include elevation the head of the bed (30° to 45°), switch to continuous administration, administration of prokinetic drugs or narcotic antagonists to promote gastrointestinal motility, and switch to jejunal access (postpyloric route). Moreover, the control of bowel movement is also important for intensive care and management. In particular, prolonged diarrhea can cause deficiency in nutrient absorption, malnutrition, and increase in mortality. In addition, diarrhea may cause a decrease the circulating blood volume, metabolic acidosis, electrolyte abnormalities, and contamination of surgical wounds and pressure ulcers. If diarrhea occurs in critically ill patients on EN management, it is important to determine whether diarrhea is EN-related or not. After ruling out the other causes of diarrhea, the measures to prevent EN-related diarrhea include switch to continuous infusion, switch to gastric feeding, adjustment of agents that improve gastrointestinal peristalsis or laxative, administration of antidiarrheal drugs, changing the type of EN formula, and semisolidification of EN formula. One of the best ways to success for EN management is to continue as long as possible without interruption and discontinuation of EN easily by appropriate measures, even if gastrointestinal complications occur.

ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit

Following the new ESPEN Standard Operating Procedures, the previous guidelines to provide best medical nutritional therapy to critically ill patients have been updated. These guidelines define who are the patients at risk, how to assess nutritional status of an ICU patient, how to define the amount of energy to provide, the route to choose and how to adapt according to various clinical conditions. When to start and how to progress in the administration of adequate provision of nutrients is also described. The best determination of amount and nature of carbohydrates, fat and protein are suggested. Special attention is given to glutamine and omega-3 fatty acids. Particular conditions frequently observed in intensive care such as patients with dysphagia, frail patients, multiple trauma patients, abdominal surgery, sepsis, and obesity are discussed to guide the practitioner toward the best evidence based therapy. Monitoring of this nutritional therapy is discussed in a separate document.

Delivery of full predicted energy from nutrition and the effect on mortality in critically ill adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The amount of energy required to improve clinical outcomes in critically ill adults is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the impact of near target energy delivery to critically ill adults on mortality and other clinically relevant outcomes.

DESIGN

Following PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomised controlled trials evaluating nutrition interventions in adult critical care populations. Included studies compared delivery of ≥80% of predicted energy requirements (near target) from enteral and/or parenteral nutrition to <80% (standard care) and reported mortality. The quality of individual studies was assessed using the Cochrane 'Risk of Bias' tool, and the overall body of evidence using the GRADE approach. Fixed or random effect meta-analyses were used pending the presence of heterogeneity (I² > 50%) when 3 or more studies reported the same outcome. Outcomes are presented as risk ratio (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Ten trials with 3155 participants were included. Mortality was unaffected by the intervention (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81, 1.27, p = 0.89, I² = 25%). Evaluation of studies of higher quality and low risk of bias did not alter the mortality inference (3 trials, 352 participants, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.49, 1.40, p = 0.19, I² = 39%). The quality of evidence across outcomes was very low.

CONCLUSIONS

The delivery of near target energy when compared to standard care in adult critically ill patients was not associated with an effect on mortality. Because the quality of the evidence across outcomes was very low there is considerable uncertainty surrounding this estimate. This has implications for clinical utility of the evidence within the included reviews.

Effect of Calories Delivered on Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: Systemic Review and Meta-analysis

Introduction:

International guidelines are promoting early enteral nutrition (EN) as a means of feeding critically ill adult patients to improve clinical outcomes. The question of how much calorie intake is enough to improve the outcomes still remained inconclusive. Therefore, we carried out a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of low calorie (LC) versus high calorie (HC) delivery on critically ill patients' outcomes.

Methods:

We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared LC EN with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition with HC delivery in this meta-analysis irrespective of the site of nutritional delivery in the gastrointestinal tract. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central register of controlled trials electronic databases to identify RCTs that compared the effects of initially different calorie intake in critical illness. The primary outcome was overall mortality.

Results:

This meta-analysis included 17 RCTs with a total of 3,593 participants. The result of analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the LC group and HC group in overall mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87–1.10; P = 0.74; I² = 6%; P = 0.38), or new-onset pneumonia (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73–1.16, P = 0.46; I² = 38%, P = 0. 11).

Conclusion:

The current meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in mortality of critically ill patients initially between the two groups.

Lower versus higher dose of enteral caloric intake in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is conflicting evidence about the relationship between the dose of enteral caloric intake and survival in critically ill patients. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effect of lower versus higher dose of enteral caloric intake in adult critically ill patients on outcome.

METHODS

We reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from inception through November 2015. We included randomized and quasi-randomized studies in which there was a significant difference in the caloric intake in adult critically ill patients, including trials in which caloric restriction was the primary intervention (caloric restriction trials) and those with other interventions (non-caloric restriction trials). Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, caloric intake, and outcomes with hospital mortality being the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Twenty-one trials mostly with moderate bias risk were included (2365 patients in the lower caloric intake group and 2352 patients in the higher caloric group). Lower compared with higher caloric intake was not associated with difference in hospital mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.953; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.838-1.083), ICU mortality (RR 0.885; 95 % CI 0.751-1.042), total nosocomial infections (RR 0.982; 95 % CI 0.878-1.077), mechanical ventilation duration, or length of ICU or hospital stay. Blood stream infections (11 trials; RR 0.718; 95 % CI 0.519-0.994) and incident renal replacement therapy (five trials; RR 0.711; 95 % CI 0.545-0.928) were lower with lower caloric intake. The associations between lower compared with higher caloric intake and primary and secondary outcomes, including pneumonia, were not different between caloric restriction and non-caloric restriction trials, except for the hospital stay which was longer with lower caloric intake in the caloric restriction trials.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no association between the dose of caloric intake in adult critically ill patients and hospital mortality. Lower caloric intake was associated with lower risk of blood stream infections and incident renal replacement therapy (five trials only). The heterogeneity in the design, feeding route and timing and caloric dose among the included trials could limit our interpretation. Further studies are needed to clarify our findings.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Nutrition Therapy in the Adult Hospitalized Patient

The value of nutrition therapy for the adult hospitalized patient is derived from the outcome benefits achieved by the delivery of early enteral feeding. Nutritional assessment should identify those patients at high nutritional risk, determined by both disease severity and nutritional status. For such patients if they are unable to maintain volitional intake, enteral access should be attained and enteral nutrition (EN) initiated within 24-48 h of admission. Orogastric or nasogastric feeding is most appropriate when starting EN, switching to post-pyloric or deep jejunal feeding only in those patients who are intolerant of gastric feeds or at high risk for aspiration. Percutaneous access should be used for those patients anticipated to require EN for >4 weeks. Patients receiving EN should be monitored for risk of aspiration, tolerance, and adequacy of feeding (determined by percent of goal calories and protein delivered). Intentional permissive underfeeding (and even trophic feeding) is appropriate temporarily for certain subsets of hospitalized patients. Although a standard polymeric formula should be used routinely in most patients, an immune-modulating formula (with arginine and fish oil) should be reserved for patients who have had major surgery in a surgical ICU setting. Adequacy of nutrition therapy is enhanced by establishing nurse-driven enteral feeding protocols, increasing delivery by volume-based or top-down feeding strategies, minimizing interruptions, and eliminating the practice of gastric residual volumes. Parenteral nutrition should be used in patients at high nutritional risk when EN is not feasible or after the first week of hospitalization if EN is not sufficient. Because of their knowledge base and skill set, the gastroenterologist endoscopist is an asset to the Nutrition Support Team and should participate in providing optimal nutrition therapy to the hospitalized adult patient.

Maintaining Enteral Nutrition in the Severely Ill using a Newly Developed Nasojejunal Feeding Tube with Gastric Decompression Function

For nutritional support of critically ill patients, the enteral route is preferred over the parenteral route. Although nasojejunal feeding can be superior to gastric feeding when gastrointestinal symptoms occur, it does not necessarily solve the problem of large gastric residual volumes. We report the successful use of a newly developed nasojejunal feeding tube with gastric decompression function in an 84-year-old man with severe pneumonia. After gastric feeding was considered not well tolerated, the use of this tube improved the delivery of nutrition until the patient was stable enough to undergo percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy.

Gastric vs Small Bowel Feeding in Critically Ill Neurologically Injured Patients: Results of a Multicenter Observational Study

BACKGROUND

To evaluate gastric compared with small bowel feeding on nutrition and clinical outcomes in critically ill, neurologically injured patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

International, prospective observational studies involving 353 intensive care units (ICUs) were included. Eligible patients were critically ill, mechanically ventilated with neurological diagnoses who remained in the ICU and received enteral nutrition (EN) exclusively for at least 3 days. Sites provided data, including patient characteristics, nutrition practices, and 60-day outcomes. Patients receiving gastric or small bowel feeding were compared. Covariates including age, sex, body mass index, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score were used in the adjusted analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 1691 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 1407 (94.1%) received gastric feeding and 88 (5.9%) received small bowel feeding. Adequacy of calories from EN was highest in the gastric group (60.2% and 52.3%, respectively, unadjusted analysis; P = .001), but this was not significant in the adjusted model (P = .428). The likelihood of EN interruptions due to gastrointestinal (GI) complications was higher for the gastric group (19.6% vs 4.7%, unadjusted model; P = .015). There were no significant differences in the rate of discontinuation of mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-1.12; P = .270) or the rate of being discharged alive from the ICU (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72-1.23; P = .641) and hospital (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.87-1.55; P = .307) after adjusting for confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a higher likelihood of EN interruptions due to GI complications, gastric feeding may be associated with better nutrition adequacy, but neither route is associated with better clinical outcomes.

Acute gastrointestinal injury in the intensive care unit: a retrospective study

Background

Acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) is a common problem in the intensive care unit (ICU). This study is a review of the gastrointestinal function of patients in critical care, with the aim to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of grading criteria developed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) Working Group on Abdominal Problems (WGAP).

Methods

Data of patients who were admitted to the ICU of Shenzhen People’s Hospital, Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China, from January 2010 to December 2011 were reviewed. A total of 874 patients were included into the current study. Their sex, age, ICU admissive causes, complication of diabetes, AGI grade, primary or secondary AGI, mechanical ventilation (MV), and length of ICU stay (days) were recorded as risk factors of death. These risk factors were studied by unconditioned logistic regression analysis.

Results

All the risk factors affected mortality rate. Unconditional logistic regression analysis revealed that the mortality rate of secondary AGI was 71 times higher than primary AGI (odds ratio [OR] 4.335, 95% CI [1.652, 11.375]). When the age increased by one year, the mortality probability would increase fourfold. Mortality in patients with MV was 63-fold higher than for patients with non-MV. Mortality rate increased 0.978 times with each additional day of ICU stay.

Conclusion

Secondary AGI caused by severe systemic conditions can result in worsened clinical outcomes. The 2012 ESICM WGAP AGI recommendations were to some extent feasible and effective in guiding clinical practices, but the grading system lacked the support of objective laboratory outcomes.

Post-pyloric versus gastric tube feeding for preventing pneumonia and improving nutritional outcomes in critically ill adults

BACKGROUND

Nutritional support is an essential component of critical care. Malnutrition has been associated with poor outcomes among patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Evidence suggests that in patients with a functional gut, nutrition should be administered through the enteral route. One of the main concerns regarding use of the enteral route is the reduction in gastric motility that is often responsible for limited caloric intake. This increases the risk of aspiration pneumonia as well. Post-pyloric feeding, in which the feed is delivered directly into the duodenum or the jejunum, could solve these issues and provide additional benefits over routine gastric administration of the feed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of post-pyloric feeding versus gastric feeding for critically ill adults who require enteral tube feeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL;2013 Issue 10), MEDLINE (Ovid) (1950 to October 2013), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to October 2013) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) via EBSCO host (1982 to October 2013). We reran the search on 4 February 2015 and will deal with the one study of interest when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing post-pyloric versus gastric tube feeding in critically ill adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Group and separately evaluated trial quality and data extraction as performed by each review author. We contacted trials authors to request missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

We pooled data from 14 trials of 1109 participants in a meta-analysis. Moderate quality evidence suggests that post-pyloric feeding is associated with low rates of pneumonia compared with gastric tube feeding (risk ratio (RR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 0.84). Low-quality evidence shows an increase in the percentage of total nutrient delivered to the patient by post-pyloric feeding (mean difference (MD) 7.8%, 95% CI 1.43 to 14.18).Evidence of moderate quality revealed no differences in duration of mechanical ventilation or in mortality. Intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay was similar between the two groups. The effect on the time required to achieve the full nutrition target was uncertain (MD -1.99 hours 95% CI -10.97 to 6.99) (very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence suggesting an increase in the rate of complications during insertion or maintenance of the tube in the post-pyloric group (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.364; RR1.63, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.86, respectively); evidence was assessed as being of low quality for both.Risk of bias was generally low in most studies, and review authors expressed concern regarding lack of blinding of the caregiver in most trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found moderate-quality evidence of a 30% lower rate of pneumonia associated with post-pyloric feeding and low-quality evidence suggesting an increase in the amount of nutrition delivered to these participants. We do not have sufficient evidence to show that other clinically important outcomes such as duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality and length of stay were affected by the site of tube feeding.Low-quality evidence suggests that insertion of a post-pyloric feeding tube appears to be safe and was not associated with increased complications when compared with gastric tube insertion. Placement of the post-pyloric tube can present challenges; the procedure is technically difficult, requiring expertise and sophisticated radiological or endoscopic assistance.We recommend that use of a post-pyloric feeding tube may be preferred for ICU patients for whom placement of the post-pyloric feeding tube is feasible. Findings of this review preclude recommendations regarding the best method for placing the post-pyloric feeding tube. The clinician is left with this decision, which should be based on the policies of institutional facilities and should be made on a case-by-case basis. Protocols and training for bedside placement by physicians or nurses should be evaluated.

Analysis of an electromagnetic tube placement device versus a self-advancing nasal jejunal device for postpyloric feeding tube placement

BACKGROUND

Initiation of enteral feeding is an important part of the best practice model for critically ill patients. Although nasogastric feeding is appropriate for the majority of patients requiring short-term nutrition support, certain patients benefit greatly from postpyloric feeding.

OBJECTIVE

To determine which of 2 specialized enteral tube systems achieved postpyloric placement on initial insertion attempt most efficiently.

DESIGN

Retrospective study comparing the Tiger 2 tube (T2T) and Cortrak Enteral Access System (C-EAS).

SETTING

Academic medical center, mixed intensive care unit (ICU).

PATIENTS

All patients admitted to the ICU between 2009 and 2013 who had either a C-EAS or T2T placed.

MEASUREMENTS

Success rate for postpyloric placement, congruency of real-time tube placement with x-ray confirmation for C-EAS, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Seventy-one T2T and 74 C-EAS patients were included. The T2T was postpyloric 62% (44/71) of attempted placements. C-EAS was postpyloric 43% (32/74) of attempted placements (P = 0.03). C-EAS tracings accurately reflected chest x-ray findings 83% and 82% for postpyloric and non-postpyloric insertion, respectively. During the entire study period, no adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Our institution evaluated 2 different systems designed to ensure postpyloric placement of a small bore feeding tube. No literature exists directly comparing the 2 systems. Our retrospective review, although limited, showed that the T2T was more effective at postpyloric placement on first attempt. Although 1 benefit of the C-EAS system may be real-time visualization, our practice showed this system to be user dependent, which likely led to less success with postpyloric placement.

Small bowel feeding and risk of pneumonia in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of small bowel feeding compared with gastric feeding on the frequency of pneumonia and other patient-important outcomes in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, clinicaltrials.gov and personal files from 1980 to Dec 2012, and conferences and proceedings from 1993 to Dec 2012 for randomized trials of adult critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) comparing small bowel feeding to gastric feeding, and evaluating risk of pneumonia, mortality, length of ICU stay, achievement of caloric requirements, duration of mechanical ventilation, vomiting, and aspiration. Independently, in duplicate, we abstracted trial characteristics, outcomes and risk of bias.

RESULTS

We included 19 trials with 1394 patients. Small bowel feeding compared to gastric feeding was associated with reduced risk of pneumonia (risk ratio [RR] 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55, 0.90; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53, 0.89; P = 0.005; I2 = 0%), with no difference in mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90, 1.29; P = 0.43; I2 = 0%), length of ICU stay (WMD -0.57; 95%CI -1.79, 0.66; P = 0.37; I2 = 0%), duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -1.01; 95%CI -3.37, 1.35; P = 0.40; I2 = 17%), gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.56, 1.42; P = 0.64; I2 = 0%), aspiration (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.52, 1.65; P = 0.79; I2 = 0%), and vomiting (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.53, 1.54; P = 0.72; I2 = 57%). The overall quality of evidence was low for pneumonia outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Small bowel feeding, in comparison with gastric feeding, reduces the risk of pneumonia in critically ill patients without affecting mortality, length of ICU stay or duration of mechanical ventilation. These observations are limited by variation in pneumonia definition, imprecision, risk of bias and small sample size of individual trials.

Comparisons between intragastric and small intestinal delivery of enteral nutrition in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The largest cohort of critically ill patients evaluating intragastric and small intestinal delivery of nutrients was recently reported. This systematic review included recent data to compare the effects of small bowel and intragastric delivery of enteral nutrients in adult critically ill patients.

Methods

This is a systematic review of all randomised controlled studies published between 1990 and March 2013 that reported the effects of the route of enteral feeding in the critically ill on clinically important outcomes.

Results

Data from 15 level-2 studies were included. Small bowel feeding was associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia (Relative Risk, RR, small intestinal vs. intragastric: 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.93); P = 0.01; I² = 11%). The point estimate was similar when only studies using microbiological data were included. Duration of ventilation (weighted mean difference: -0.36 days (-2.02 to 1.30); P = 0.65; I² = 42%), length of ICU stay (WMD: 0.49 days, (-1.36 to 2.33); P = 0.60; I² = 81%) and mortality (RR 1.01 (0.83 to 1.24); P = 0.92; I² = 0%) were unaffected by the route of feeding. While data were limited, and there was substantial statistical heterogeneity, there was significantly improved nutrient intake via the small intestinal route (% goal rate received: 11% (5 to 16%); P = 0.0004; I² = 88%).

Conclusions

Use of small intestinal feeding may improve nutritional intake and reduce the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia. In unselected critically ill patients other clinically important outcomes were unaffected by the site of the feeding tube.

Gastrointestinal tract access for enteral nutrition in critically ill and trauma patients: indications, techniques, and complications

BACKGROUND

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a widely used, standard-of-care technique for nutrition support in critically ill and trauma patients.

OBJECTIVE

To review the current techniques of gastrointestinal tract access for EN.

METHODS

For this traditional narrative review, we accessed English-language articles and abstracts published from January 1988 through October 2012, using three research engines (MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE) and the following key terms: "enteral nutrition," "critically ill," and "gut access." We excluded outdated abstracts.

RESULTS

For our nearly 25-year search period, 44 articles matched all three terms. The most common gut access techniques included nasoenteric tube placement (nasogastric, nasoduodenal, or nasojejunal), as well as a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG). Other open or laparoscopic techniques, such as a jejunostomy or a gastrojejunostomy, were also used. Early EN continues to be preferred whenever feasible. In addition, evidence is mounting that EN during the early phase of critical illness or trauma trophic feeding has an outcome comparable to that of full-strength formulas. Most patients tolerate EN through the stomach, so postpyloric tube feeding is not needed initially.

CONCLUSION

In critically ill and trauma patients, early EN through the stomach should be instituted whenever feasible. Other approaches can be used according to patient needs, available expertise, and institutional guidelines. More research is needed in order to ensure the safe use of surgical tubes in the open abdomen.