Hot topics in parenteral nutrition. Current evidence and ongoing trials on the use of glutamine in critically-ill patients and patients undergoing surgery

Peer reviewedPreprin

SCAMP:standardised, concentrated, additional macronutrients, parenteral nutrition in very preterm infants: a phase IV randomised, controlled exploratory study of macronutrient intake, growth and other aspects of neonatal care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Infants born <29 weeks gestation are at high risk of neurocognitive disability. Early postnatal growth failure, particularly head growth, is an important and potentially reversible risk factor for impaired neurodevelopmental outcome. Inadequate nutrition is a major factor in this postnatal growth failure, optimal protein and calorie (macronutrient) intakes are rarely achieved, especially in the first week. Infants <29 weeks are dependent on parenteral nutrition for the bulk of their nutrient needs for the first 2-3 weeks of life to allow gut adaptation to milk digestion. The prescription, formulation and administration of neonatal parenteral nutrition is critical to achieving optimal protein and calorie intake but has received little scientific evaluation. Current neonatal parenteral nutrition regimens often rely on individualised prescription to manage the labile, unpredictable biochemical and metabolic control characteristic of the early neonatal period. Individualised prescription frequently fails to translate into optimal macronutrient delivery. We have previously shown that a standardised, concentrated neonatal parenteral nutrition regimen can optimise macronutrient intake.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We propose a single centre, randomised controlled exploratory trial of two standardised, concentrated neonatal parenteral nutrition regimens comparing a standard macronutrient content (maximum protein 2.8 g/kg/day; lipid 2.8 g/kg/day, dextrose 10%) with a higher macronutrient content (maximum protein 3.8 g/kg/day; lipid 3.8 g/kg/day, dextrose 12%) over the first 28 days of life. 150 infants 24-28 completed weeks gestation and birthweight <1200 g will be recruited. The primary outcome will be head growth velocity in the first 28 days of life. Secondary outcomes will include a) auxological data between birth and 36 weeks corrected gestational age b) actual macronutrient intake in first 28 days c) biomarkers of biochemical and metabolic tolerance d) infection biomarkers and other intravascular line complications e) incidence of major complications of prematurity including mortality f) neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years corrected gestational age</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current controlled trials: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN76597892">ISRCTN76597892</a>; EudraCT Number: 2008-008899-14</p

Does enternal nutrition affect clinical outcome? A systematic review of the randomized trials

Background: Both parenteral nutrition (PN) and enteral nutrition (EN) are widely advocated as adjunctive care in patients with various diseases. A systematic review of 82 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of PN published in 2001 found little, if any, effect on mortality, morbidity, or duration of hospital stay; in some situations, PN increased infectious complication rates. Objective: To assess the effect of EN or volitional nutrition support (VNS) in individual disease states from available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Design: We conducted a systematic review. RCTs comparing EN or VNS to untreated controls, or comparing EN to PN, were identified and separated according to the underlying disease state. Meta-analysis was performed when at least 3 RCTs provided data. The evidence from the RCTs was summarized into one of five grades. A or B indicated the presence of strong or weak (low quality RCTs) evidence supporting the use of the intervention. C indicated a lack of adequate evidence to make any decision about efficacy. D indicated that limited data could not support the intervention. E indicated either that strong data found no effect, or that either strong or weak data suggested that the intervention caused harm. Patients and settings: RCTs could include either hospitalized or non-hospitalized patients. The EN or VNS had to be provided as part of a treatment plan for an underlying disease process. Interventions: The RCT had to compare recipients of either EN or VNS to controls not receiving any type of artificial nutrition or had to compare recipients of EN with recipients of PN. Outcome measures: Mortality, morbidity (disease-specific), duration of hospitalization, cost, or interventional complications. Summary of grading: A – No indication was identified. B – EN or VNS in the perioperative patient or in patients with chronic liver disease; EN in critically ill patients or low birth weight infants (trophic feeding); VNS in malnourished geriatric patients. (The low quality trials found a significant difference in survival favoring the VNS recipients in the malnourished geriatric patient trials; two high quality trials found non-significant differences that favored VNS as well.) C – EN or VNS in liver transplantation, cystic fibrosis, renal failure, pediatric conditions other than low birth weight infants, well-nourished geriatric patients, non-stroke neurologic conditions, AIDS; EN in acute pancreatitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, non-malnourished geriatric patients; VNS in inflammatory bowel disease, arthritis, cardiac disease, pregnancy, allergic patients, preoperative bowel preparation D – EN or VNS in patients receiving non-surgical cancer treatment or in patients with hip fractures; EN in patients with inflammatory bowel disease; VNS in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease E – EN in the first week in dysphagic, or VNS at any time in non-dysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished; dysphagia persisting for weeks will presumably ultimately require EN. Conclusions: There is strong evidence for not using EN in the first week in dysphagic, and not using VNS at all in non-dysphagic, stroke patients who are not malnourished. There is reasonable evidence for using VNS in malnourished geriatric patients. The recommendations to consider EN/VNS in perioperative/liver/critically ill/low birth weight patients are limited by the low quality of the RCTs. No evidence could be identified to justify the use of EN/VNS in other disease states

Routine Changing of Intravenous Administration Sets Does Not Reduce Colonization or Infection in Central Venous Catheters

Objective: To determine the effect of routine intravascular administration-set changes on central venous catheter (CVC) colonization and catheter related bacteremia (CRB). Design: Prospective, randomised controlled trial Setting: 18-bed ICU in a University-affiliated, tertiary referral hospital. Participants: 404 chlorhexidine and silver sulfadiazine coated multi-lumen CVCs from 251 intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Interventions: After ethical approval, CVCs inserted in ICU and in situ on Day 4 were randomised to have their administration-sets changed on Day 4 (n = 203) or not at all (n = 201). Fluid container and blood product administration-set use was limited to 24 hours. CVCs were removed (Day 7, not required or suspected infection), and cultured for colonization ( 15 cfu). Medical and laboratory staff were blinded. CRB was diagnosed by a blinded intensivist using strict definitions. Data was collected on; catheter life, CVC site, APACHE II score, patient age, diagnosis, hyperglycemia, hypoalbuminemia, immune status, number of fluid containers and intravenous injections, propofol, blood, TPN or lipid infusion. Results: There were 10 colonized CVCs in the set change group and 19 in the no change group. This was not a statistically significant difference on Kaplan Meier survival analysis (Effect Size = 0.09, Log Rank = 0.87, df = 1, p = 0.35). There were 3 cases of CRB per group. Logistic regression found that burns diagnosis and increased ICU stay were the only factors that significantly predicted colonization (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Intravenous administration-sets can be used for 7-days. Routine administration-set changes are unnecessary before this time

Risk factors for central venous catheter-related infections in surgical and intensive care units. The Central Venous Catheter-Related Infections Study Group.

To identify avoidable risk factors for central venous catheter (CVC) infections in patients undergoing short-term catheterization

Comment on \u3ci\u3eSmall Bowel Necrosis\u3c/i\u3e

Comment on the Article Small bowel necrosis associated with postoperative jejunal tube feeding