Clinical nutrition issues in 2022: What is missing to trust supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) in ICU patients?

Clinical nutrition; Intensive care unit; Nutrition careNutrició clínica; Unitat de cures intensives; Cura de la nutricióNutrición Clínica; Unidad de cuidados intensivos; Cuidado de la nutriciónA multidisciplinary group of international physicians involved in the medical nutrition therapy (MNT) of adult critically ill patients met to discuss the value, role, and open questions regarding supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) along with oral or enteral nutrition (EN), particularly in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. This manuscript summarizes the discussions and results to highlight the importance of SPN as part of a comprehensive approach to MNT in critically ill adults and for researchers to generate new evidence based on well-powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The experts agreed on several key points: SPN has shown clinical benefits, resulting in this strategy being included in American and European guidelines. Nevertheless, its use is heterogeneous across European countries, due to the persistence of uncertainties, such as the optimal timing and the risk of overfeeding in absence of indirect calorimetry (IC), which results in divergent opinions and barriers to SPN implementation. Education is also insufficient. The experts agreed on actions needed to increase evidence quality on SPN use in specific patients at a given time point during acute critical illness or recovery.The organization of the Virtual Meeting that motivated this publication was funded by Baxter Healthcare SA. The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. MPC receives funding from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) (Grant No. 1832817N) and Onderzoeksraad, KU Leuven (Grant No. C24/17/070) and from the Private Charity Organization “Help Brandwonden Kids

Clinical nutrition issues in 2022: What is missing to trust supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) in ICU patients?

A multidisciplinary group of international physicians involved in the medical nutrition therapy (MNT) of adult critically ill patients met to discuss the value, role, and open questions regarding supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) along with oral or enteral nutrition (EN), particularly in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. This manuscript summarizes the discussions and results to highlight the importance of SPN as part of a comprehensive approach to MNT in critically ill adults and for researchers to generate new evidence based on well-powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The experts agreed on several key points: SPN has shown clinical benefts, resulting in this strategy being included in American and European guidelines. Nevertheless, its use is heterogeneous across European countries, due to the persistence of uncertainties, such as the optimal timing and the risk of overfeeding in absence of indirect calorimetry (IC), which results in divergent opinions and barriers to SPN implementation. Education is also insufcient. The experts agreed on actions needed to increase evidence quality on SPN use in specifc patients at a given time point during acute critical illness or recovery.MPC receives funding from the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) (Grant No. 1832817N) and Onderzoeksraad, KU Leuven (Grant No. C24/17/070) and from the Private Charity Organization “Help Brandwonden Kids.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

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 >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access

Impact of early enteral versus parenteral nutrition on mortality in patients requiring mechanical ventilation and catecholamines: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (NUTRIREA-2)

BACKGROUND: Nutritional support is crucial to the management of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and the most commonly prescribed treatment in intensive care units (ICUs). International guidelines consistently indicate that enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred over parenteral nutrition (PN) whenever possible and started as early as possible. However, no adequately designed study has evaluated whether a specific nutritional modality is associated with decreased mortality. The primary goal of this trial is to assess the hypothesis that early first-line EN, as compared to early first-line PN, decreases day 28 all-cause mortality in patients receiving IMV and vasoactive drugs for shock. METHODS/DESIGN: The NUTRIREA-2 study is a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial comparing early PN versus early EN in critically ill patients requiring IMV for an expected duration of at least 48 hours, combined with vasoactive drugs, for shock. Patients will be allocated at random to first-line PN for at least 72 hours or to first-line EN. In both groups, nutritional support will be started within 24 hours after IMV initiation. Calorie targets will be 20 to 25 kcal/kg/day during the first week, then 25 to 30 kcal/kg/day thereafter. Patients receiving PN may be switched to EN after at least 72 hours in the event of shock resolution (no vasoactive drugs for 24 consecutive hours and arterial lactic acid level below 2 mmol/L). On day 7, all patients receiving PN and having no contraindications to EN will be switched to EN. In both groups, supplemental PN may be added to EN after day 7 in patients with persistent intolerance to EN and inadequate calorie intake. We plan to recruit 2,854 patients at 44 participating ICUs. DISCUSSION: The NUTRIREA-2 study is the first large randomized controlled trial designed to assess the hypothesis that early EN improves survival compared to early PN in ICU patients. Enrollment started on 22 March 2013 and is expected to end in November 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802099 (registered 27 February 2013)

Clinical and molecular epidemiological features of critically ill patients with invasive group A Streptococcus infections: a Belgian multicenter case-series.

peer reviewed[en] BACKGROUND: Recent alerts have highlighted an increase in group A streptococcal (GAS) infections since 2022 in Europe and the United States. Streptococcus pyogenes can cause limited skin or mucosal disease, but can also present as severe invasive disease necessitating critical care. We performed a multicenter retrospective study of patients with GAS infections recently admitted to Belgian intensive care units (ICUs) since January 2022. We describe patient characteristics and investigate the molecular epidemiology of the S. pyogenes strains involved. RESULTS: Between January 2022 and May 2023, a total of 86 cases (56 adults, 30 children) with GAS disease were admitted to critical care in the university hospitals of Leuven, Antwerp and Liège. We noted a strikingly high incidence of severe community-acquired pneumonia (sCAP) (45% of adults, 77% of children) complicated with empyema in 45% and 83% of adult and pediatric cases, respectively. Two-thirds of patients with S. pyogenes pneumonia had viral co-infection, with influenza (13 adults, 5 children) predominating. Other disease presentations included necrotizing fasciitis (23% of adults), other severe skin/soft tissue infections (16% of adults, 13% of children) and ear/nose/throat infections (13% of adults, 13% of children). Cardiogenic shock was frequent (36% of adults, 20% of children). Fifty-six patients (65%) had toxic shock syndrome. Organ support requirements were high and included invasive mechanical ventilation (77% of adults, 50% of children), renal replacement therapy (29% of adults, 3% of children) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (20% of adults, 7% of children). Mortality was 21% in adults and 3% in children. Genomic analysis of S. pyogenes strains from 55 out of 86 patients showed a predominance of emm1 strains (73%), with a replacement of the M1global lineage by the toxigenic M1UK lineage (83% of emm1 strains were M1UK). CONCLUSIONS: The recent rise of severe GAS infections (2022-23) is associated with introduction of the M1UK lineage in Belgium, but other factors may be at play-including intense circulation of respiratory viruses and potentially an immune debt after the COVID pandemic. Importantly, critical care physicians should include S. pyogenes as causative pathogen in the differential diagnosis of sCAP

Mammal responses to global changes in human activity vary by trophic group and landscape

Wildlife must adapt to human presence to survive in the Anthropocene, so it is critical to understand species responses to humans in different contexts. We used camera trapping as a lens to view mammal responses to changes in human activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Across 163 species sampled in 102 projects around the world, changes in the amount and timing of animal activity varied widely. Under higher human activity, mammals were less active in undeveloped areas but unexpectedly more active in developed areas while exhibiting greater nocturnality. Carnivores were most sensitive, showing the strongest decreases in activity and greatest increases in nocturnality. Wildlife managers must consider how habituation and uneven sensitivity across species may cause fundamental differences in human–wildlife interactions along gradients of human influence.Peer reviewe