Enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route in critically ill patients (PEP uP protocol): a review of evidence

Nutrition support is an integral part of care among critically ill patients. However, critically ill patients are commonly underfed, leading to consequences such as increased length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, time on mechanical ventilation, infectious complications, and mortality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of underfeeding has not resolved since the first description of this problem more than 15 years ago. This may be due to the traditional conservative feeding approaches. A novel feeding protocol (the Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol in Critically Ill Patients [PEP uP] protocol) was proposed and proven to improve feeding adequacy significantly. However, some of the components in the protocol are controversial and subject to debate. This article is a review of the supporting evidences and some of the controversy associated with each component of the PEP uP protocol

Comparisons between intragastric and small intestinal delivery of enteral nutrition in the critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: The largest cohort of critically ill patients evaluating intragastric and small intestinal delivery of nutrients was recently reported. This systematic review included recent data to compare the effects of small bowel and intragastric delivery of enteral nutrients in adult critically ill patients. METHODS: This is a systematic review of all randomised controlled studies published between 1990 and March 2013 that reported the effects of the route of enteral feeding in the critically ill on clinically important outcomes. RESULTS: Data from 15 level-2 studies were included. Small bowel feeding was associated with a reduced risk of pneumonia (Relative Risk, RR, small intestinal vs. intragastric: 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.93); P = 0.01; I(2 )= 11%). The point estimate was similar when only studies using microbiological data were included. Duration of ventilation (weighted mean difference: -0.36 days (-2.02 to 1.30); P = 0.65; I(2 )= 42%), length of ICU stay (WMD: 0.49 days, (-1.36 to 2.33); P = 0.60; I(2 )= 81%) and mortality (RR 1.01 (0.83 to 1.24); P = 0.92; I(2 )= 0%) were unaffected by the route of feeding. While data were limited, and there was substantial statistical heterogeneity, there was significantly improved nutrient intake via the small intestinal route (% goal rate received: 11% (5 to 16%); P = 0.0004; I(2 )= 88%). CONCLUSIONS: Use of small intestinal feeding may improve nutritional intake and reduce the incidence of ICU-acquired pneumonia. In unselected critically ill patients other clinically important outcomes were unaffected by the site of the feeding tube

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Subgroup analysis comparing the effect of enteral versus parenteral nutrition on infectious complications in higher versus lower quality trials (with the median methodological score 7 as cutoff). CI confidence interval, EN enteral nutrition, M-H Mantel-Haenszel test, PN parenteral nutrition. (PDF 87 kb

Handover patterns: an observational study of critical care physicians

Abstract Background Handover (or 'handoff') is the exchange of information between health professionals that accompanies the transfer of patient care. This process can result in adverse events. Handover 'best practices', with emphasis on standardization, have been widely promoted. However, these recommendations are based mostly on expert opinion and research on medical trainees. By examining handover communication of experienced physicians, we aim to inform future research, education and quality improvement. Thus, our objective is to describe handover communication patterns used by attending critical care physicians in an academic centre and to compare them with currently popular, standardized schemes for handover communication. Methods Prospective, observational study using video recording in an academic intensive care unit in Ontario, Canada. Forty individual patient handovers were randomly selected out of 10 end-of-week handover sessions of attending physicians. Two coders independently reviewed handover transcripts documenting elements of three communication schemes: SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations); SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan); and a standard medical admission note. Frequency and extent of questions asked by incoming physicians were measured as well. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics. Results Mean (± standard deviation) duration of patient-specific handovers was 2 min 58 sec (± 57 sec). The majority of handovers' content consisted of recent and current patient status. The remainder included physicians' interpretations and advice. Questions posed by the incoming physicians accounted for 5.8% (± 3.9%) of the handovers' content. Elements of all three standardized communication schemes appeared repeatedly throughout the handover dialogs with no consistent pattern. For example, blocks of SOAP's Assessment appeared 5.2 (± 3.0) times in patient handovers; they followed Objective blocks in only 45.9% of the opportunities and preceded Plan in just 21.8%. Certain communication elements were occasionally absent. For example, SBAR's Recommendation and admission note information about the patient's Past Medical History were absent from 22 (55.0%) and 20 (50.0%), respectively, of patient handovers. Conclusions Clinical handover practice of faculty-level critical care physicians did not conform to any of the three predefined structuring schemes. Further research is needed to examine whether alternative approaches to handover communication can be identified and to identify features of high-quality handover communication.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/112680/1/12913_2011_Article_1919.pd

Toward Optimal End-of-Life Care for Patients with Advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Insights from a Multicentre Study

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients’ needs and perspectives is fundamental to improving end-of-life (EOL) care. However, little is known of what quality care means to patients who have advanced lung disease.OBJECTIVES: To describe ratings of importance and satisfaction with elements of EOL care, informational needs, decision-making preferences, obstacles to a preferred location of death, clinical outcomes, and health care use before and during an index hospital admission for patients who have advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).METHODS: A questionnaire with regard to quality EOL care was administered to patients older than 55 years of age who had advanced medical disease in five Canadian teaching hospitals.RESULTS: For 118 hospitalized patients who had advanced COPD, the following items were rated as extremely important for EOL care: not being kept alive on life support when there is little hope for meaningful recovery (54.9% of respondents), symptom relief (46.6%), provision of care and health services after discharge (40.0%), trust and confidence in physicians (39.7%), and not being a burden on caregivers (39.6%). Compared with patients who had metastatic cancer, patients with COPD had lower (P&lt;0.05) satisfaction with care, interest in information about prognosis, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or mechanical ventilation, and referral rates to palliative care, whereas use of acute care services was higher (P&lt;0.05) for patients who had advanced COPD.CONCLUSION: Canadian patients who have advanced COPD identify several priorities for improving care. Avoidance of prolonged or unwanted life support requires more effective communication, decision making and goal setting. Patients also deserve better symptom control and postdischarge strategies to minimize perceived burdens on caregivers, emergency room visits and hospital admissions.</jats:p

Redefining the concept of the elderly burn patient: Analysis of a multicentre international dataset.

The elderly are highly vulnerable to major burn injuries. Typically, 'elderly' is accepted as ≥ 65 years of age. This cut-off is arbitrary, lacks a robust evidence base and is potentially damaging from a clinical-decision-making perspective. The study objective was to utilise a large international dataset of major burns to stratify mortality risk by age and objectively define 'elderly' patients with significantly higher risk of poor outcome. We performed a sub-analysis of the RE-ENERGIZE clinical trial dataset. RE-ENERGIZE included 1200 patients admitted to 54 burn centres worldwide with 2nd and/or 3rd degree burns, who were expected to require skin grafting. In a first-of-its-kind age stratification study, we stratified major burns patients by five-year age intervals. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards analyses were performed with three-month mortality and time-to-discharge-alive (TTDA) as the primary and secondary outcomes. Three-month mortality was 15.41 %. Age was associated with three-month mortality upon multivariable logistic regression analysis (p = 0.000, OR=1.06, CI=1.05-1.08), independently of total burn surface area burned (TBSA%), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Age 80 + was independently associated with increased mortality and TTDA, when compared to all referent 5-year age groups (p ≤ 0.000-0.043). The Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) for the 80 + group was 20.5 %. We present a new threshold of risk stratification in patients with major burns; Patients ≥ 80 years have a significantly poorer outcome, irrespective of injury severity, resultant critical illness severity, and variables including comorbidities, which has implications for prognostication and management decisions. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.