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

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

Background: 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., PNEN 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

Evaluation of Nutritional Practices in the Critical Care Patient (The ENPIC Study): Does Nutrition Really Affect ICU Mortality?

Background & 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 char-acteristics: 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. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals &lt;1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

The Effect of Enteral Immunonutrition in the Intensive Care Unit: Does It Impact on Outcomes?

Background: The present research aimed to evaluate the effect on outcomes of immunonutrition (IMN) enteral formulas during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Methods: A multicenter prospective observational study was performed. Patient characteristics, disease severity, nutritional status, type of nutritional therapy and outcomes, and laboratory parameters were collected in a database. Statistical differences were analyzed according to the administration of IMN or other types of enteral formulas. Results: In total, 406 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 15.02% (61) received IMN. Univariate analysis showed that patients treated with IMN formulas received higher mean caloric and protein intake, and better 28-day survival (85.2% vs. 73.3%; p = 0.014. Unadjusted Hazard Ratio (HR): 0.15; 95% CI (Confidence Interval): 0.06-0.36; p < 0.001). Once adjusted for confounding factors, multivariate analysis showed a lower need for vasopressor support (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.26-0.91; p = 0.023) and continuous renal replacement therapies (OR: 0.13; 95% CI: 0.01-0.65; p = 0.049) in those patients who received IMN formulas, independently of the severity of the disease. IMN use was also associated with higher protein intake during the administration of nutritional therapy (OR: 6.23; 95% CI: 2.59-15.54; p < 0.001), regardless of the type of patient. No differences were found in the laboratory parameters, except for a trend toward lower triglyceride levels (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.99; p = 0.045). Conclusion: The use of IMN formulas may be associated with better outcomes (i.e., lower need for vasopressors and continuous renal replacement), together with a trend toward higher protein enteral delivery during the ICU stay. These findings may ultimately be related to their modulating effect on the inflammatory response in the critically ill. NCT Registry: 03634943