Ensuring Optimal Survival and Post-ICU Quality of Life in High-Risk ICU Patients: Permissive Underfeeding Is Not Safe!

Nutritional gap after transfer from the intensive care unit to a general ward - A retrospective quality assurance study

BACKGROUND

Adequate nutrition is important for recovery after critical illness. Even so, our knowledge of patients' nutritional intake after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore nutritional planning and achieved nutritional intake in ICU patients who transfer from the ICU to general wards.

METHODS

A retrospective quality assurance study.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

adult ICU patients transferring to a general ward at Copenhagen University Hospital-Herlev from May to August 2021. Primary outcomes were as follows: having a nutritional plan on the day of ICU transfer. A nutritional plan was defined as follows: (i) individual assessment of energy and protein requirement; (ii) intake, documented as achieved percentage of energy and protein requirements; (iii) prescribed type of nutrition. If using enteral or parenteral nutrition; (iv) the prescribed doses; and (v) the prescribed product. Secondary outcomes were as follows: achieved percentage of energy and protein requirements from day -1 before ICU transfer until day +1 and day +3 after ICU transfer.

RESULTS

We included 57 patients; the mean age was 64 years (±11.1); 43 (75%) patients were male; the median ICU stay was 6 days (interquartile range: 3-11). One (2%) patient had a full nutritional plan according to listed criteria. Patients' median percentage of requirements met declined significantly from the day before to the day after ICU discharge (energy: from 94% to 30.5%; p = 0.0051; protein: from 73% to 27.5%; p = 0.0117). The decline in percentage of requirements met remained unchanged from day 1 to 3 after ICU transfer.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, few patients had a nutritional plan when transferring from the ICU to a general ward. After ICU discharge, percentage of energy and protein requirements met declined significantly and remained insufficient during the first 3 days at the general ward.

Impact of withholding early parenteral nutrition on 2-year mortality and functional outcome in critically ill adults

PURPOSE

In critically ill adults, withholding parenteral nutrition until 1 week after intensive care admission (Late-PN) facilitated recovery as compared with early supplementation of insufficient enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition (Early-PN). However, the impact on long-term mortality and functional outcome, in relation to the estimated nutritional risk, remains unclear.

METHODS

In this prospective follow-up study of the multicenter EPaNIC randomized controlled trial, we investigated the impact of Late-PN on 2-year mortality (N = 4640) and physical functioning, assessed by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; in 3292 survivors, responding 819 [738-1058] days post-randomization). To account for missing data, we repeated the analyses in two imputed models. To identify potential heterogeneity of treatment effects, we investigated the impact of Late-PN in different nutritional risk subgroups as defined by Nutritional Risk Screening-2002-score, modified NUTrition Risk in the Critically Ill-score, and age (above/below 70 years), and we evaluated whether there was statistically significant interaction between classification to a nutritional risk subgroup and the effect of the randomized intervention. Secondary outcomes were SF-36-derived physical and mental component scores (PCS & MCS).

RESULTS

Two-year mortality (20.5% in Late-PN, 19.8% in Early-PN; P = 0.54) and physical functioning (70 [40-90] in both study-arms; P = 0.99) were similar in both groups, also after imputation of missing physical functioning data. Likewise, Late-PN had no impact on 2-year mortality and physical functioning in any nutritional risk subgroup. PCS and MCS were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Late-PN did not alter 2-year survival and physical functioning in adult critically ill patients, independent of anticipated nutritional risk.

Nutrition in neurocritical care

Adequate nutritional therapy is essential for recovery from critical illness. Nutritional requirement varies in different patients and varies daily in a single patient. Both under and over feeding are associated with complications. Besides this, not all patients behave in a similar way to nutritional therapy. Appropriate nutritional therapy requires identification of patients "at nutritional risk" and providing aggressive nutritional support to them. The current article deals with nutritional support in critical illness with special emphasis on neurocritical care patients.

Prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support for critically-ill adults

BACKGROUND

There are controversies about the amount of calories and the type of nutritional support that should be given to critically-ill people. Several authors advocate the potential benefits of hypocaloric nutrition support, but the evidence is inconclusive.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support in comparison with standard nutrition support for critically-ill adults SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS (from inception to 20 June 2017) with a specific strategy for each database. We also assessed three websites, conference proceedings and reference lists, and contacted leaders in the field and the pharmaceutical industry for undetected/unpublished studies. There was no restriction by date, language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing hypocaloric nutrition support to normo- or hypercaloric nutrition support or no nutrition support (e.g. fasting) in adults hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We meta-analysed data for comparisons in which clinical heterogeneity was low. We conducted prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and post hoc analyses, including meta-regression. Our primary outcomes were: mortality (death occurred during the ICU and hospital stay, or 28- to 30-day all-cause mortality); length of stay (days stayed in the ICU and in the hospital); and Infectious complications. Secondary outcomes included: length of mechanical ventilation. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 15 trials, with a total of 3129 ICU participants from university-associated hospitals in the USA, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Greece, Germany and Iran. There are two ongoing studies. Participants suffered from medical and surgical conditions, with a variety of inclusion criteria. Four studies used parenteral nutrition and nine studies used only enteral nutrition; it was unclear whether the remaining two used parenteral nutrition. Most of them could not achieve the proposed caloric targets, resulting in small differences in the administered calories between intervention and control groups. Most studies were funded by the US government or non-governmental associations, but three studies received funding from industry. Five studies did not specify their funding sources.The included studies suffered from important clinical and statistical heterogeneity. This heterogeneity did not allow us to report pooled estimates of the primary and secondary outcomes, so we have described them narratively.When comparing hypocaloric nutrition support with a control nutrition support, for hospital mortality (9 studies, 1775 participants), the risk ratios ranged from 0.23 to 5.54; for ICU mortality (4 studies, 1291 participants) the risk ratios ranged from 0.81 to 5.54, and for mortality at 30 days (7 studies, 2611 participants) the risk ratios ranged from 0.79 to 3.00. Most of these estimates included the null value. The quality of the evidence was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision.Participants who received hypocaloric nutrition support compared to control nutrition support had a range of mean hospital lengths of stay of 15.70 days lower to 10.70 days higher (10 studies, 1677 participants), a range of mean ICU lengths of stay 11.00 days lower to 5.40 days higher (11 studies, 2942 participants) and a range of mean lengths of mechanical ventilation of 13.20 days lower to 8.36 days higher (12 studies, 3000 participants). The quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias in most studies, inconsistency and imprecision.The risk ratios for infectious complications (10 studies, 2804 participants) of each individual study ranged from 0.54 to 2.54. The quality of the evidence for this outcome was very low due to unclear or high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecisionWe were not able to explain the causes of the observed heterogeneity using subgroup and sensitivity analyses or meta-regression.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The included studies had substantial clinical heterogeneity. We found very low-quality evidence about the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition support on mortality in hospital, in the ICU and at 30 days, as well as in length of hospital and ICU stay, infectious complications and the length of mechanical ventilation. For these outcomes there is uncertainty about the effects of prescribed hypocaloric nutrition, since the range of estimates includes both appreciable benefits and harms.Given these limitations, results must be interpreted with caution in the clinical field, considering the unclear balance of the risks and harms of this intervention. Future research addressing the clinical heterogeneity of participants and interventions, study limitations and sample size could clarify the effects of this intervention.

Tailoring nutrition therapy to illness and recovery

Without doubt, in medicine as in life, one size does not fit all. We do not administer the same drug or dose to every patient at all times, so why then would we live under the illusion that we should give the same nutrition at all times in the continuum of critical illness? We have long lived under the assumption that critical illness and trauma lead to a consistent early increase in metabolic/caloric need, the so-called “hypermetabolism” of critical illness. What if this is incorrect? Recent data indicate that early underfeeding of calories (trophic feeding) may have benefits and may require consideration in well-nourished patients. However, we must confront the reality that currently ICU nutrition delivery worldwide is actually leading to “starvation” of our patients and is likely a major contributor to poor long-term quality of life outcomes. To begin to ascertain the actual calorie and protein delivery required for optimal ICU recovery, an understanding of “starvation” and recovery from starvation and lean body mass (LBM) loss is needed. To begin to answer this question, we must look to the landmark Minnesota Starvation Study from 1945. This trial defines much of the world’s knowledge about starvation, and most importantly what is required for recovery from starvation and massive LBM loss as occurs in the ICU. Recent and historic data indicate that critical illness is characterized by early massive catabolism, LBM loss, and escalating hypermetabolism that can persist for months or years. Early enteral nutrition during the acute phase should attempt to correct micronutrient/vitamin deficiencies, deliver adequate protein, and moderate nonprotein calories in well-nourished patients, as in the acute phase they are capable of generating significant endogenous energy. Post resuscitation, increasing protein (1.5–2.0 g/kg/day) and calories are needed to attenuate LBM loss and promote recovery. Malnutrition screening is essential and parenteral nutrition can be safely added following resuscitation when enteral nutrition is failing based on pre-illness malnutrition and LBM status. Following the ICU stay, significant protein/calorie delivery for months or years is required to facilitate functional and LBM recovery, with high-protein oral supplements being essential to achieve adequate nutrition.

NutritionDay ICU: A 7 year worldwide prevalence study of nutrition practice in intensive care

INTRODUCTION

To determine the nutrition practice in intensive care units and the associated outcome across the world, a yearly 1 day cross sectional audit was performed from 2007 to 2013. The data of this initiative called "nutritionDay ICU" were analyzed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire translated in 17 languages was used to determine the unit's characteristics, patient's condition, nutrition condition and therapy as well as outcome. All the patients present in the morning of the 1 day prevalence study were included from 2007 to 2013.

RESULTS

9777 patients from 46 countries and 880 units were included. Their SAPS 2 was median 38 (IQR 27-51), predicted mortality was 30.7% ± 26.9, and their SOFA score 4.5 ± 3.4 with median 4 (IQR 2-7). Administration of calories did not appear to be related to actual or ideal body weight within all BMI groups. Patients with a BMI <18.5 or >40 received slightly less calories than all other BMI groups. Two third of the patients were either ventilated or were in the ICU for longer than 24 h at nutritionDay. Routes of feeding used were the oral, enteral and parenteral routes. More than 40% of the patients were not fed during the first day. The mean energy administered using enteral route was 1286 ± 663 kcal/day and using parenteral nutrition 1440 ± 652 kcal/day. 60 days mortality was 26.0%.

DISCUSSION

This very large collaborative cohort study shows that most of the patients are underfed during according to actual recommendations their ICU stay. Prescribed calories appear to be ordered regardless to the ideal weight of the patient. Nutritional support is slow to start and never reaches the recommended targets. Parenteral nutrition prescription is increasing during the ICU stay but reaching only 20% of the population studied if ICU stay is one week or longer. The nutritional support worldwide does not seem to be guided by weight or disease but more to be standardized and limited to a certain level of calories. These observations are showing the poor observance to guidelines.

Normocaloric versus hypocaloric feeding on the outcomes of ICU patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Current clinical practice guidelines recommend providing ICU patients a daily caloric intake estimated to match 80-100 % of energy expenditure (normocaloric goals). However, recent clinical trials of intentional hypocaloric feeding question this approach.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ICU patients randomized to intentional hypocaloric or normocaloric goals. We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled ICU patients and compared intentional hypocaloric with normocaloric nutritional goals. We included studies that evaluated both trophic feeding as well as permissive underfeeding. Data sources included MEDLINE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and citation review of relevant primary and review articles. The outcomes of interest included hospital acquired infection, hospital mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS) and ventilator-free days (VFDs).

RESULTS

Six studies which enrolled 2517 patients met our inclusion criteria. The mean age and body mass index (BMI) across the studies were 53 ± 5 years and 29.1 ± 1.5 kg/m(2), respectively. Two studies compared normocaloric feeding (77% of goal) with trophic feeding (20% of goal), while four studies compared normocaloric feeding (72% of goal) with permissive underfeeding (49% of goal). Overall, there was no significant difference in the risk of infectious complications (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.84-1.27, I(2) = 16%), hospital mortality (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.75-1.11, I(2) = 8%) or ICU LOS (mean difference 0.05 days; 95% CI 1.33-1.44 days; I(2) = 37%) between groups. VFDs were reported in three studies with no significant difference between the normocaloric and intentional hypocaloric groups (data not pooled).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in the risk of acquired infections, hospital mortality, ICU length of stay or ventilator-free days between patients receiving intentional hypocaloric as compared to normocaloric nutritional goals.