Should we measure intra-abdominal pressures in every intensive care patient?

Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) is seldom measured by default in intensive care patients. This review summarises the current evidence on the prevalence and risk factors of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) to assist the decision-making for IAP monitoring

Intra-Abdominal Hypertension and Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Background. We aimed to describe the incidence of intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and related outcome in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients. Methods. Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and gastric residual volumes were measured at least twice daily. IAH was defined as a mean daily value of IAP ≥ 12 mmHg. Results. 398 patients were monitored for all together 2987 days. GI symptom(s) occurred in 80.2% patients. 152 (38.2%) patients developed IAH. Majority (93.4%) of patients with IAH had GI symptoms. The more severe IAH was associated with the higher number of concomitant GI symptoms (P < .001). 142 (35.7%) patients developed both IAH and at least one GI symptom at any time in ICU, and in 77 patients they occurred simultaneously on the same day. This subgroup had the highest ICU mortality (21.8%). In contrast, the small group of patients presenting only IAH, but not GI symptoms (10 patients), had no lethal outcome. Three patients (4.4%) died without showing either IAH or GI symptoms. Conclusions. GI symptoms and IAH often, but not always, occur together. The patients having IAH solely without developing GI symptoms have rather good outcome

Implementation of enteral feeding protocol in an intensive care unit:Before-and-after study

AIM: To determine the effects of implementing an enteral feeding protocol on the nutritional delivery and outcomes of intensive care patients. METHODS: An uncontrolled, observational before-and-after study was performed in a tertiary mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). In 2013, a nurse-driven enteral feeding protocol was developed and implemented in the ICU. Nutrition and outcome-related data from patients who were treated in the study unit from 2011-2012 (the Before group) and 2014-2015 (the After group) were obtained from a local electronic database, the national Population Registry and the hospital’s Infection Control Service. Data from adult patients, readmissions excluded, who were treated for at least 7 d in the study unit were analysed. RESULTS: In total, 231 patients were enrolled in the Before and 249 in the After group. The groups were comparable regarding demographics, patient profile, and severity of illness. Fewer patients were mechanically ventilated on admission in the After group (86.7% vs 93.1% in the Before group, P = 0.021). The prevalence of hospital-acquired infections, length of ICU stay and ICU, 30- and 60-d mortality did not differ between the groups. Patients in the After group had a lower 90-d (P = 0.026) and 120-d (P = 0.033) mortality. In the After group, enteral nutrition was prescribed less frequently (P = 0.039) on day 1 but significantly more frequently on all days from day 3. Implementation of the feeding protocol resulted in a higher cumulative amount of enterally (P = 0.049) and a lower cumulative amount of parenterally (P < 0.001) provided calories by day 7, with an overall reduction in caloric provision (P < 0.001). The prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms was comparable in both groups, as was the frequency of prokinetic use. Underfeeding (total calories < 80% of caloric needs, independent of route) was observed in 59.4% of the study days Before vs 76.9% After (P < 0.001). Inclusion in the Before group, previous abdominal surgery, intra-abdominal hypertension and the sum of gastrointestinal symptoms were found to be independent predictors of insufficient enteral nutrition. CONCLUSION: The use of a nurse-driven feeding protocol improves the delivery of enteral nutrition in ICU patients without concomitant increases in gastrointestinal symptoms or intra-abdominal hypertension

Gastrointestinal function in intensive care patients: terminology, definitions and management. Recommendations of the ESICM Working Group on Abdominal Problems

Purpose: Acute gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction and failure have been increasingly recognized in critically ill patients. The variety of definitions proposed in the past has led to confusion and difficulty in comparing one study to another. An international working group convened to standardize the definitions for acute GI failure and GI symptoms and to review the therapeutic options. Methods: The Working Group on Abdominal Problems (WGAP) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) developed the definitions for GI dysfunction in intensive care patients on the basis of the available evidence and current understanding of the pathophysiology. Results: Definitions for acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) with its four grades of severity, as well as for feeding intolerance syndrome and GI symptoms (e.g. vomiting, diarrhoea, paralysis, high gastric residual volumes) are proposed. AGI is a malfunctioning of the GI tract in intensive care patients due to their acute illness. AGI grade I=increased risk of developing GI dysfunction or failure (a self-limiting condition); AGI grade II=GI dysfunction (a condition that requires interventions); AGI grade III=GI failure (GI function cannot be restored with interventions); AGI grade IV=dramatically manifesting GI failure (a condition that is immediately life-threatening). Current evidence and expert opinions regarding treatment of acute GI dysfunction are provided. Conclusions: State-of-the-art definitions for GI dysfunction with gradation as well as management recommendations are proposed on the basis of current medical evidence and expert opinion. The WGAP recommends using these definitions for clinical and research purpose

Gastrointestinal symptoms during the first week of intensive care are associated with poor outcome : a prospective multicentre study

The study aimed to develop a gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction score predicting 28-day mortality for adult patients needing mechanical ventilation (MV). 377 adult patients from 40 ICUs with expected duration of MV for at least 6 h were prospectively studied. Predefined GI symptoms, intra-abdominal pressures (IAP), feeding details, organ dysfunction and treatment were documented on days 1, 2, 4 and 7. The number of simultaneous GI symptoms was higher in nonsurvivors on each day. Absent bowel sounds and GI bleeding were the symptoms most significantly associated with mortality. None of the GI symptoms alone was an independent predictor of mortality, but gastrointestinal failure (GIF)-defined as three or more GI symptoms-on day 1 in ICU was independently associated with a threefold increased risk of mortality. During the first week in ICU, GIF occurred in 24 patients (6.4 %) and was associated with higher 28-day mortality (62.5 vs. 28.9 %, P = 0.001). Adding the created subscore for GI dysfunction (based on the number of GI symptoms) to SOFA score did not improve mortality prediction (day 1 AUROC 0.706 [95 % CI 0.647-0.766] versus 0.703 [95 % CI 0.643-0.762] in SOFA score alone). An increasing number of GI symptoms independently predicts 28 day mortality with moderate accuracy. However, it was not possible to develop a GI dysfunction score, improving the performance of the SOFA score either due to data set limitations, definition problems, or possibly indicating that GI dysfunction is often secondary and not the primary cause of other organ failure

Development of the Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Score (GIDS) for critically ill patients – A prospective multicenter observational study (iSOFA study)

Background & aims: To develop a five grade score (0–4 points) for the assessment of gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction in adult critically ill patients. Methods: This prospective multicenter observational study enrolled consecutive adult patients admitted to 11 intensive care units in nine countries. At all sites, daily clinical data with emphasis on GI clinical symptoms were collected and intra-abdominal pressure measured. In five out of 11 sites, the biomarkers citrulline and intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) were measured additionally. Cox models with time-dependent scores were used to analyze associations with 28- and 90-day mortality. The models were estimated with stratification for study center. Results: We included 540 patients (224 with biomarker measurements) with median age of 65 years (range 18–94), the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II score of 38 (interquartile range 26–53) points, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 6 (interquartile range 3–9) points at admission. Median ICU length of stay was 3 (interquartile range 1–6) days and 90-day mortality 18.9%. A new five grade Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Score (GIDS) was developed based on the rationale of the previously developed Acute GI Injury (AGI) grading. Citrulline and I-FABP did not prove their potential for scoring of GI dysfunction in critically ill. GIDS was independently associated with 28- and 90-day mortality when added to SOFA total score (HR 1.40; 95%CI 1.07–1.84 and HR 1.40; 95%CI 1.02–1.79, respectively) or to a model containing all SOFA subscores (HR 1.48; 95%CI 1.13–1.92 and HR 1.47; 95%CI 1.15–1.87, respectively), improving predictive power of SOFA score in all analyses. Conclusions: The newly developed GIDS is additive to SOFA score in prediction of 28- and 90-day mortality. The clinical usefulness of this score should be validated prospectively. Trial registration: NCT02613000, retrospectively registered 24 November 2015.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines.

To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness. We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We defined "early" EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds. We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion. We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate &gt;500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access

Intestinal failure in adults: recommendations from the ESPEN Expert Groups

Background and aims: Intestinal failure (IF) is defined as “the reduction of gut function below the minimum necessary for the absorption of macronutrients and/or water and electrolytes, such that intravenous supplementation is required to maintain health and/or growth”. Functionally, it may be classified as type I acute intestinal failure (AIF), type II prolonged AIF and type III chronic intestinal failure (CIF) The ESPEN Workshop on IF was held in Bologna, Italy, on 15-16 October 2017 and the aims of this document were to highlight the current state of the art and future directions for research in IF. Methods: This paper represents the opinion of experts in the field, based on current evidence. It is not a formal review, but encompasses the current evidence, with emphasis on epidemiology, classification, diagnosis and management. Results: IF is the rarest form of organ failure and can result from a variety of conditions that affect gastrointestinal anatomy and function adversely. Assessment, diagnosis, and short and long-term management involves a multidisciplinary team with diverse expertise in the field that aims to reduce complications, increase life expectancy and improve quality of life in patients. Conclusions: Both AIF and CIF are relatively rare conditions and most of the published work presents evidence from small, single-centre studies. Much remains to be investigated to improve the diagnosis and management of IF and future studies should rely on multidisciplinary, multicentre and multinational collaborations that gather data from large cohorts of patients. Emphasis should also be placed on partnership with patients, carers and government agencies in order to improve the quality of research that focuses on patient-centred outcomes that will help to improve both outcomes and quality of life in patients with this devastating condition