Continued enteral nutrition until extubation compared with fasting before extubation in patients in the intensive care unit: an open-label, cluster-randomised, parallel-group, non-inferiority trial

Nutrition considerations for patients with persistent critical illness: A narrative review

Critically ill patients experience high rates of malnutrition and significant muscle loss during their intensive care unit (ICU) admission, impacting recovery. Nutrition is likely to play an important role in mitigating the development and progression of malnutrition and muscle loss observed in ICU, yet definitive clinical trials of nutrition interventions in ICU have failed to show benefit. As improvements in the quality of medical care mean that sicker patients are able to survive the initial insult, combined with an aging and increasingly comorbid population, it is anticipated that ICU length of stay will continue to increase. This review aims to discuss nutrition considerations unique to critically ill patients who have persistent critical illness, defined as an ICU stay of >10 days. A discussion of nutrition concepts relevant to patients with persistent critical illness will include energy and protein metabolism, prescription, and delivery; monitoring of nutrition at the bedside; and the role of the healthcare team in optimizing nutrition support.

Why and when should we cluster randomize?

A cluster randomized trial is defined as a randomized trial in which intact social units of individuals are randomized rather than individuals themselves. Outcomes are observed on individual participants within clusters (such as patients). Such a design allows assessing interventions targeting cluster-level participants (such as physicians), individual participants or both. Indeed, many interventions assessed in cluster randomized trials are actually complex ones, with distinct components targeting different levels. For a cluster-level intervention, cluster randomization is an obvious choice: the intervention is not divisible at the individual-level. For individual-level interventions, cluster randomization may nevertheless be suitable to prevent group contamination, for logistical reasons, to enhance participants' adherence, or when objectives pertain to the cluster level. An unacceptable reason for cluster randomization would be to avoid obtaining individual consent. Indeed, participants in cluster randomized trials have to be protected as in any type of trial design. Participants may be people from whom data are collected, but they may also be people who are intervened upon, and this includes both patients and physicians (for example, physicians receiving training interventions). Consent should be sought as soon as possible, although there may exist situations where participants may consent only for data collection, not for being exposed to the intervention (because, for instance, they cannot opt-out). There may even be situations where participants are not able to consent at all. In this latter situation a waiver of consent must be granted by a research ethics committee.

Preprocedural fasting policies for patients receiving tube feeding: A national survey

BACKGROUND

Patients who are critically ill frequently accrue substantial nutrition deficits due to multiple episodes of prolonged fasting prior to procedures. Existing literature suggests that, for most patients receiving tube feeding, the aspiration risk is low. Yet, national and international guidelines do not address fasting times for tube feeding, promoting uncertainty regarding optimal preprocedural fasting practice. We aimed to characterize current institutional fasting practices in the United States for patients with and without a secure airway, with variable types of enteral access, for representative surgical procedures.

METHODS

The survey was distributed to a purposive sample of academic institutions in the United States. Reponses were reported as restrictive (6-8 h preprocedurally) or permissive (<6 h or continued intraprocedurally) feeding policies. Differences between level 1 trauma centers and others, and between burn centers and others, were evaluated.

RESULTS

The response rate was 40.3% (56 of 139 institutions). Responses revealed a wide variability with respect to current practices, with more permissive policies reported in patients with secure airways. In patients with a secure airway, Level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely to have permissive fasting policies for patients undergoing an extremity incision and drainage for each type of feeding tube surveyed.

CONCLUSIONS

Current hospital policies for preprocedural fasting in patients receiving tube feeds are conflicting and are frequently more permissive than guidelines for healthy patients receiving oral nutrition. Prospective research is needed to establish the safety and clinical effects of various fasting practices in tube-fed patients.