Smartfeeding: A Dynamic Strategy to Increase Nutritional Efficiency in Critically Ill Patients-Positioning Document of the Metabolism and Nutrition Working Group and the Early Mobilization Working Group of the Catalan Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine (SOCMiC)

Critical illness; Intensive care units; Nutritional therapyMalaltia crítica; Unitats de cures intensives; Teràpia nutricionalEnfermedad crítica; Unidades de cuidados intensivos; Terapia nutricionalAdequate medical nutrition therapy for critically ill patients has an impact on their prognoses. However, it requires an individualized approach that takes into account the activity (phases of metabolic stress) and particularity of these patients. We propose a comprehensive strategy considering the patients’ nutritional status and the set of modifiable circumstances in these patients, in order to optimize/support nutritional efficiency: (1) A detailed anamnesis and an adequate initial nutritional assessment must be performed in order to implement medical nutrition therapy that is in line with the needs and characteristics of each patient. Furthermore, risks associated with refeeding syndrome, nutritrauma or gastrointestinal dysfunction must be considered and prevented. (2) A safe transition between nutrition therapy routes and between health care units will greatly contribute to recovery. The main objective is to preserve lean mass in critically ill patients, considering metabolic factors, adequate protein intake and muscle stimulation. (3) Continuous monitoring is required for the successful implementation of any health strategy. We lack precise tools for calculating nutritional efficiency in critically ill patients, therefore thorough monitoring of the process is essential. (4) The medical nutrition approach in critically ill patients is multidisciplinary and requires the participation of the entire team involved. A comprehensive strategy such as this can make a significant difference in the functional recovery of critically ill patients, but leaders must be identified to promote training, evaluation, analysis and feedback as essential components of its implementation, and to coordinate this process with the recognition of hospital management

Evaluation of Nutritional Practices in the Critical Care patient (The ENPIC study): Does nutrition really affect ICU mortality?

Enteral nutrition; Intensive care unit; MortalityNutrició enteral; Unitat de Cures Intensives; MortalitatNutrición enteral; Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos; MortalidadBackground & aims: The importance of artificial nutritional therapy is underrecognized, typically being considered an adjunctive rather than a primary therapy. We aimed to evaluate the influence of nutritional therapy on mortality in critically ill patients. Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study included adult patients needing artificial nutritional therapy for >48 h if they stayed in one of 38 participating intensive care units for ≥72 h between April and July 2018. Demographic data, comorbidities, diagnoses, nutritional status and therapy (type and details for ≤14 days), and outcomes were registered in a database. Confounders such as disease severity, patient type (e.g., medical, surgical or trauma), and type and duration of nutritional therapy were also included in a multivariate analysis, and hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were reported. Results: We included 639 patients among whom 448 (70.1%) and 191 (29.9%) received enteral and parenteral nutrition, respectively. Mortality was 25.6%, with non-survivors having the following characteristics: older age; more comorbidities; higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (6.6 ± 3.3 vs 8.4 ± 3.7; P < 0.001); greater nutritional risk (Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill [NUTRIC] score: 3.8 ± 2.1 vs 5.2 ± 1.7; P < 0.001); more vasopressor requirements (70.4% vs 83.5%; P=0.001); and more renal replacement therapy (12.2% vs 23.2%; P=0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that older age (HR: 1.023; 95% CI: 1.008-1.038; P=0.003), higher SOFA score (HR: 1.096; 95% CI: 1.036-1.160; P=0.001), higher NUTRIC score (HR: 1.136; 95% CI: 1.025-1.259; P=0.015), requiring parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition (HR: 2.368; 95% CI: 1.168-4.798; P=0.017), and a higher mean Kcal/Kg/day intake (HR: 1.057; 95% CI: 1.015-1.101; P=0.008) were associated with mortality. By contrast, a higher mean protein intake protected against mortality (HR: 0.507; 95% CI: 0.263-0.977; P=0.042). Conclusions: Old age, higher organ failure scores, and greater nutritional risk appear to be associated with higher mortality. Patients who need parenteral nutrition after starting enteral nutrition may represent a high-risk subgroup for mortality due to illness severity and problems receiving appropriate nutritional therapy. Mean calorie and protein delivery also appeared to influence outcomes

Parenteral Nutrition: Current Use, Complications, and Nutrition Delivery in Critically Ill Patients

Complementary parenteral nutrition; Critically ill patients; Enteral nutritionNutrición parenteral complementaria; Pacientes críticamente enfermos; Nutrición enteralNutrició parenteral complementària; Pacients crítics; Nutrició enteralBackground: Parenteral nutrition (PN) is needed to avoid the development of malnutrition when enteral nutrition (EN) is not possible. Our main aim was to assess the current use, complications, and nutrition delivery associated with PN administration in adult critically ill patients, especially when used early and as the initial route. We also assessed the differences between patients who received only PN and those in whom EN was initiated after PN (PN-EN). Methods: A multicenter (n = 37) prospective observational study was performed. Patient clinical characteristics, outcomes, and nutrition-related variables were recorded. Statistical differences between subgroups were analyzed accordingly. Results: From the entire population (n = 629), 186 (29.6%) patients received PN as initial nutrition therapy. Of these, 74 patients (11.7%) also received EN during their ICU stay (i.e., PN-EN subgroup). PN was administered early (<48 h) in the majority of patients (75.3%; n = 140) and the mean caloric (19.94 ± 6.72 Kcal/kg/day) and protein (1.01 ± 0.41 g/kg/day) delivery was similar to other contemporary studies. PN showed similar nutritional delivery when compared with the enteral route. No significant complications were associated with the use of PN. Thirty-two patients (43.3%) presented with EN-related complications in the PN-EN subgroup but received a higher mean protein delivery (0.95 ± 0.43 vs 1.17 ± 0.36 g/kg/day; p = 0.03) compared with PN alone. Once adjusted for confounding factors, patients who received PN alone had a lower mean protein intake (hazard ratio (HR): 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.47; p = 0.001), shorter ICU stay (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99; p = 0.008), and fewer days on mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81-0.89; p = 0.001) compared with the PN-EN subgroup. Conclusion: The parenteral route may be safe, even when administered early, and may provide adequate nutrition delivery. Additional EN, when possible, may optimize protein requirements, especially in more severe patients who received initial PN and are expected to have longer ICU stays. NCT Registry: 03634943.The present study was funded by the Spanish Society of Metabolism and Nutrition (SENPE: Sociedad Española de Nutrición y Metabolismo): Best Working Group Project Award at the SENPE National Congress in 2022