How many nonprotein calories does a critically Ill patient require? A case for hypocaloric nutrition in the critically Ill patient

Q3Q272S-76SCalculation of energy and protein doses for critically ill patients is still a matter of controversy. For more than 40 years of nutrition support, the total amount of nutrients to be delivered to these patients has been calculated based on expert recommendations, and this calculation is based on the administration of nonprotein calories in one attempt to ameliorate catabolic response and avoid the weight loss. New evidence suggests protein delivery is the most important intervention to improve clinical and metabolic outcomes. This article describes the metabolic rationale and the new evidence supporting a change in the approach of metabolic support of the critically ill, proposing a physiological-based intervention supported by the recognition of ancillary characteristics of the metabolic response to trauma and injury. A moderate dose of calories around 15 kcal/kg/d with a delivery of protein of 1.5 g/kg/d appears to be the new recommendation for many hypercatabolic patients in the first week following injury

Protein Delivery in the Intensive Care Unit: Optimal or Suboptimal?

Emerging evidence suggests that exogenous protein/amino acid supplementation has the potential to improve the recovery of critically ill patients. After a careful review of the published evidence, experts have concluded that critically ill patients should receive up to 2.0-2.5 g/kg/d of protein. Despite this, however, recent review of current International Nutrition Survey data suggests that protein in critically ill patients is underprescribed and grossly underdelivered. Furthermore, the survey suggests that most of protein administration comes from enteral nutrition (EN) despite the availability of products and protocols that enhance the delivery of protein/amino acids in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. While future research clarifies the dose, timing, and composition for exogenous protein administration, as well as identification of patients who will benefit the most, ongoing process improvement initiatives should target a concerted effort to increase protein intake in the critically ill. This assertion follows from the notion that current patients are possibly being harmed while we wait for confirmatory evidence. Further research should also develop better tools to enable bedside practitioners to monitor optimal or adequate protein intake for individual patients. Finally, exploring the effect of combining adequate protein delivery with early mobility and/or resistance exercise in the ICU setting has the greatest potential for improving the functional outcomes of survivors of critical illness and warrants further study

Protein delivery in the intensive care unit: optimal or suboptimal?

Emerging evidence suggests that exogenous protein/amino acid supplementation has the potential to improve the recovery of critically ill patients. After a careful review of the published evidence, experts have concluded that critically ill patients should receive up to 2.0-2.5 g/kg/d of protein. Despite this, however, recent review of current International Nutrition Survey data suggests that protein in critically ill patients is underprescribed and grossly underdelivered. Furthermore, the survey suggests that most of protein administration comes from enteral nutrition (EN) despite the availability of products and protocols that enhance the delivery of protein/amino acids in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. While future research clarifies the dose, timing, and composition for exogenous protein administration, as well as identification of patients who will benefit the most, ongoing process improvement initiatives should target a concerted effort to increase protein intake in the critically ill. This assertion follows from the notion that current patients are possibly being harmed while we wait for confirmatory evidence. Further research should also develop better tools to enable bedside practitioners to monitor optimal or adequate protein intake for individual patients. Finally, exploring the effect of combining adequate protein delivery with early mobility and/or resistance exercise in the ICU setting has the greatest potential for improving the functional outcomes of survivors of critical illness and warrants further study

Intermittent versus continuous enteral nutrition in critically ill children: A pre-planned secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study

Background & aims: Intermittent enteral nutrition (EN) may have physiologic benefits over continuous feeding in critical illness. We aimed to compare nutrition and infection outcomes in critically ill children receiving intermittent or continuous EN. Methods: International, multi-center prospective observational study of mechanically ventilated children, 1 month to 18 years of age, receiving EN. Percent energy or protein adequacy (energy or protein delivered/prescribed × 100) and acquired infection rates were compared between intermittent and continuous EN groups using adjusted-multivariable and 4:1 propensity-score matched (PSM) analyses. Sensitivity analyses were performed after excluding patients who crossed over between intermittent and continuous EN. Results: 1375 eligible patients from 66 PICUs were included. Patients receiving continuous EN (N = 1093) had a higher prevalence of respiratory illness and obesity, and lower prevalence of neurologic illness and underweight status on admission, compared to those on intermittent EN (N = 282). Percent energy or protein adequacy, proportion of patients who achieved 60% of energy or protein adequacy in the first 7 days of admission, and rates of acquired infection were not different between the 2 groups in adjusted-multivariable and propensity score matching analyses (P > 0.05). Conclusion: Intermittent versus continuous EN strategy is not associated with differences in energy or protein adequacy, or acquired infections, in mechanically ventilated, critically ill children. Until further evidence is available, an individualized feeding strategy rather than a universal approach may be appropriate