Does Route of Full Feeding Affect Outcome among Ventilated Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Prospective Observational Study

Comparison of Early Enteral Nutrition Versus Early Parenteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Nutritional support is crucial in critically ill patients to enhance recovery, reduce infections, and improve outcomes. This meta-analysis compared early enteral nutrition (EEN) and early parenteral nutrition (EPN) to evaluate their efficacy in adult critically ill patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of 14 studies involving 7618 patients was conducted, including randomized controlled trials, prospective cohorts, and retrospective analyses. The primary outcomes were mortality and infectious complications, while secondary outcomes included intensive care unit length of stay (ICU-LOS), hospital length of stay (H-LOS), mechanical ventilation days, and gastrointestinal (GI) complications.

RESULTS

The results showed no significant difference in mortality between EEN and EPN (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93-1.14). EEN reduced bloodstream infections (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.93), ICU-LOS (MD -0.18 days, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.04), and H-LOS (MD -1.15 days, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.93). However, EEN was associated with higher GI complications, such as vomiting and diarrhea (OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.97-2.58), while mechanical ventilation days showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support prioritizing EEN in critically ill patients with functional gastrointestinal systems to improve infection control and recovery while emphasizing the importance of careful monitoring to mitigate gastrointestinal complications.

Changes in Interprofessional Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Effect on Patient Outcomes: A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Changes in healthcare delivery were required during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the approach to care of the COVID-19 patient on nursing sensitive indicators and nutrition therapy and the utilization of rehabilitation services during the first year of the pandemic in the acute care setting.

METHOD

A retrospective study of 894 patients admitted with a COVID-19 diagnosis was conducted between March 2020 and February 2021 in 3-month cohorts. All charts were reviewed for general demographics and hospital data, nursing quality indicators, and nutritional and rehabilitation services for the first 30 days of admission.

RESULTS

Differences in patient characteristics were noted among the cohorts. Variations were observed between time points in hospital-acquired pressure injury occurrence, with mechanical ventilation and proning being independent predictors of hospital-acquired pressure injuries. There were differences noted in the percentage of patients with a central line-associated bloodstream infection among the time points (P < .001), but there were no differences noted in catheter-associated urinary tract infections (P = .20). Overall, 15.5% had a malnutrition diagnosis, with most patients receiving 50% of prescribed calorie and protein needs. Rehabilitation services increased over time with these services being initiated earlier in the later cohorts (P < .001).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study demonstrated the impact of the pandemic on outcomes in the areas of nursing, nutrition, and rehabilitation, which varied across quarterly cohorts as we learned and developed new practices and adapted to a novel pandemic.

Formulation of the Menu of a General Hospital After Its Conversion to a "COVID Hospital": A Nutrient Analysis of 28-Day Menus

Aim

The aim of the present study was to modify the hospital menu to increase energy and protein provision in COVID-19 patients.

Methods

After the conversion of our hospital to a COVID-19 hospital, eggs, and comfort foods such as vanilla pudding were added to the menu to boost energy and protein intake of patients. All meals of the standard menu of the hospital, i.e., breakfast, lunch, and dinner were recorded for 14 consecutive days during two periods: pre-COVID-19 and after being converted to a "COVID hospital." The menus were analyzed with the use of the USDA database.

Results

The total content of energy (1,873 ± 87 vs. 2,489 ± 137 Kcal), protein (97 ± 11 vs. 126.4 ± 18.7 g), fat (55 ± 9 vs. 74.1 ± 12.8 g), and carbohydrate (241.0 ± 16.0 vs. 323.0 ± 16.0 g) of the provided menus was increased in the COVID-19 period compared to the pre-COVID period. The leucine provision was also increased (4.8 ± 1.08 vs. 7.2 ± 1.3 g). Changes in protein and leucine were greater for breakfast (10 vs. 21 g protein and 0.8 vs. 1.7 g of leucine). The menu during COVID-29 provided more vitamin C (69.5 vs. 109.4 mg), thiamine (1.5 vs. 1.6 mg), riboflavin (2.1 vs. 2.6 mg), niacin (20.6 vs. 27.2 mg), pantothenic Acid (5.7 vs. 7.9 mg), vitamin B6 (2 vs. 2.6 mg), folate (274 vs. 334 μg), B 12 (4.8 vs. 6.2 μg), choline (296 vs. 458 mg) as well as vitamins A (8,564 vs. 21,258 IU), D (3.9 vs. 4.7 μg), and K (59.3-111.5 μg). As far as micronutrients are concerned, the provisions of calcium (972 vs. 1375 mg), iron (10.2-12.8 mg), magnesium (236 vs. 294 mg), phosphorus (1,325 vs. 1,807 mg), copper (1.0 vs. 1.3 mg), manganese (2.1 vs. 2.4 mg) and selenium (148 vs. 183 μg) were increased during the COVID-19 period.

Conclusion

Simple menu changes and addition of comfort foods can substantially boost the nutrient content of a hospital diet, which in concert with provision of oral nutritional supplements could have an impact on patients' nutritional status.

The Effects of Enteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Patients who are critically ill with COVID-19 could have impaired nutrient absorption due to disruption of the normal intestinal mucosa. They are often in a state of high inflammation, increased stress and catabolism as well as a significant increase in energy and protein requirements. Therefore, timely enteral nutrition support and the provision of optimal nutrients are essential in preventing malnutrition in these patients. Aim: This review aims to evaluate the effects of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Method: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted based on the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-Analysis framework and PICO. Searches were conducted in databases, including EMBASE, Health Research databases and Google Scholar. Searches were conducted from database inception until 3 February 2022. The reference lists of articles were also searched for relevant articles. Results: Seven articles were included in the systematic review, and four articles were included in the meta-analysis. Two distinct areas were identified from the results of the systematic review and meta-analysis: the impact of enteral nutrition and gastrointestinal intolerance associated with enteral nutrition. The impact of enteral nutrition was further sub-divided into early enteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition and enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutrition. The results of the meta-analysis of the effects of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients with COVID-19 showed that, overall, enteral nutrition was effective in significantly reducing the risk of mortality in these patients compared with the control with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79, 0.99, p = 0.04). Following sub-group analysis, the early enteral nutrition group also showed a significant reduction in the risk of mortality with a risk ratio of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.79, 1.00, p = 0.05). The Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) of mortality in patients with COVID-19 by early enteral nutrition was 11%. There was a significant reduction in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in the early enteral nutrition group compared with the delayed enteral nutrition group. There was no significant difference between enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition in relation to mortality (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.59, 1.28, p = 0.48). Concerning the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay and days on mechanical ventilation, while there were reductions in the number of days in the enteral nutrition group compared to the control (delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition), the differences were not significant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The results showed that early enteral nutrition significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the risk of mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, early enteral nutrition or enteral nutrition did not significantly (p > 0.05) reduce the length of hospital stay, length of ICU stay and days on mechanical ventilation compared to delayed enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition. More studies are needed to examine the effect of early enteral nutrition in patients with COVID-19.