Safety and Efficacy of Continuous or Intermittent Enteral Nutrition in ICU Patients: Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence

The best mode of delivering enteral nutrition (EN) in ICU is still debated: several consensus guidelines (ASPEN and ESPEN) suggest that EN in ICU should be preferably delivered continuously rather intermittently but some authors highlight that the first is unphysiological. The aim of this systematic review (SR) is to summarize available clinical evidence related to safety and efficacy of continuous enteral nutrition (C-EN) or intermittent enteral nutrition (I-EN) in ICU patients, in relation to appropriated supply on nutritional status, gastrointestinal symptoms or tolerance, risks on respiratory tract infections. A literature search of Pubmed, EMBASE and Google Scholar was performed comparing C-EN vs I-EN and 4196 published studies were screened. Nineteen studies were selected for this SR reporting types of ICU, nutritional protocols and study period. Effects of C-EN vs I-EN were presented according to the impact on: nutritional status, digestive tract and respiratory tract. The contrasting results confirmed that the optimal delivering mode of EN remains controversial. Future studies dedicated to identify the benefits and limitations of C-EN or I-EN should be realized. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Validation of the Perioperative Nutrition Screen (PONS) for Prediction of Postoperative Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Preoperative nutrition risk is often underrecognized and undertreated. The Perioperative Nutrition Screen (PONS) was recently introduced as an efficient tool to rapidly screen for preoperative nutritional risk. The relationship between identification of "nutritional risk" via PONS and adverse outcomes postoperatively remains undescribed.

METHODS

Preoperative nutrition risk was assessed via PONS from 1/1/2019-9/30/2020. Key clinical outcomes were compared with individual and composite PONS components.

RESULTS

3,151 patients with PONS evaluations were analyzed. Multivariate regression analysis adjusted for key co-variates demonstrated positive responses for specific PONS component questions was associated with adverse clinical outcomes as follows: 1) Unplanned weight loss (>10% in 6-months preoperatively) associated with a 22.4% increased length of stay (LOS) (95%CI: 13.3%-32.1%, p<0 .0001) and increased 30-day readmission rate (OR 2.44, 95%CI: 1.73-3.44, p<0.001); 2) History of < 50% of previous oral intake in past week associated with a 25% increased LOS (95%CI: 15.7%-35.2%, p<0.001); 3) Preoperative albumin <3.0g/l associated with a 29.9% increased LOS (p< 0.001) and increased 30-day readmission rate (OR 2.66 (95% CI: 1.63-4.35, p<0.001); 4) Low BMI (<18.5 kg/m2 ≤65 years old or <20 kg/m2 in ≥65 years old) was not associated with increased LOS by adjusted analysis although was predictive by univariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The PONS and its individual components appear to predict risk of adverse postoperative outcomes, even independent of a validated malnutrition diagnosis. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of specific preoperative nutrition interventions on adverse outcomes predicted by PONS when delivered to patients identified via PONS screen. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.