Very high intact-protein formula successfully provides protein intake according to nutritional recommendations in overweight critically ill patients : a double-blind randomized trial

Background: Optimal energy and protein provision through enteral nutrition is essential for critically ill patients. However, in clinical practice, the intake achieved is often far below the recommended targets. Because no polymeric formula with sufficient protein content is available, adequate protein intake can be achieved only by supplemental amino acids or semi-elemental formula administration. In the present study, we investigated whether protein intake can be increased with a new, very high intact-protein formula (VHPF) for enteral feeding. Methods: In this randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter trial, 44 overweight (body mass index = 25 kg/m(2)) intensive care unit patients received either a VHPF (8 g/100 kcal) or a commercially available standard high protein formula (SHPF) (5 g/100 kcal). Protein and energy intake, gastrointestinal tolerance (gastric residual volume, vomiting, diarrhea, and constipation), adverse events, and serious adverse events were recorded. Total serum amino acid levels were measured at baseline and day 5. Results: The primary outcome, protein intake at day 5, was 1.49 g/kg body weight (95% CI 1.21-1.78) and 0.76 g/kg body weight (95% CI 0.49-1.03, P < 0.001) for VHPF and SHPF, respectively. Daily protein intake was statistically significantly higher in the VHPF group compared with the SHPF group from day 2 to day 10. Protein intake in the VHPF group as a percentage of target (1.5 g/kg ideal body weight) was 74.7% (IQR 53.2-87.6%) and 111.6% (IQR 51.7-130.7%) during days 1-3 and days 4-10, respectively. Serum amino acid concentrations were higher at day 5 in the VHPF group than in the SHPF group (P = 0.031). No differences were found in energy intake, measures of gastrointestinal tolerance, and safety. Conclusions: Enteral feeding with VHPF (8 g/100 kcal) resulted in higher protein intake and plasma amino acid concentrations than an isocaloric SHPF (5 g/100 kcal), without an increase in energy intake. This VHPF facilitates feeding according to nutritional guidelines and is suitable as a first-line nutritional treatment for critically ill overweight patients

Nurses’ worry or concern and early recognition of deteriorating patients on general wards in acute care hospitals: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION:Nurses often recognize deterioration in patients through intuition rather than through routine measurement of vital signs. Adding the 'worry or concern' sign to the Rapid Response System provides opportunities for nurses to act upon their intuitive feelings. Identifying what triggers nurses to be worried or concerned might help to put intuition into words, and potentially empower nurses to act upon their intuitive feelings and obtain medical assistance in an early stage of deterioration. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the signs and symptoms that trigger nurses' worry or concern about a patient's condition.METHODS:We searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo and Cochrane Library (Clinical Trials) using synonyms related to the three concepts: 'nurses', 'worry/concern' and 'deterioration'. We included studies concerning adult patients on general wards in acute care hospitals. The search was performed from the start of the databases until 14 February 2014.RESULTS:The search resulted in 4,006 records, and 18 studies (five quantitative, nine qualitative and four mixed-methods designs) were included in the review. A total of 37 signs and symptoms reflecting the nature of the criterion worry or concern emerged from the data and were summarized in 10 general indicators. The results showed that worry or concern can be present with or without change in vital signs.CONCLUSIONS:The signs and symptoms we found in the literature reflect the nature of nurses' worry or concern, and nurses may incorporate these signs in their assessment of the patient and their decision to call for assistance. The fact that it is present before changes in vital signs suggests potential for improving care in an early stage of deterioration

Hospital-acquired sinusitis is a common cause of fever of unknown origin in orotracheally intubated critically ill patients

INTRODUCTION: Sinusitis is a well recognised but insufficiently understood complication of critical illness. It has been linked to nasotracheal intubation, but its occurrence after orotracheal intubation is less clear. We studied the incidence of sinusitis in patients with fever of unknown origin (FUO) in our intensive care unit with the aim of establishing a protocol that would be applicable in everyday clinical practice. METHODS: Sinus X-rays (SXRs) were performed in all patients with fever for which an initial screening (physical examination, microbiological cultures and chest X-ray) revealed no obvious cause. All patients were followed with a predefined protocol, including antral drainage in all patients with abnormal or equivocal results on their SXR. RESULTS: Initial screening revealed probable causes of fever in 153 of 351 patients (43.6%). SXRs were taken in the other 198 patients (56.4%); 129 had obvious or equivocal abnormalities. Sinus drainage revealed purulent material and positive cultures (predominantly Pseudomonas and Klebsiella species) in 84 patients. Final diagnosis for the cause of fever in all 351 patients based on X-ray results, microbiological cultures, and clinical response to sinus drainage indicated sinusitis as the sole cause of fever in 57 (16.2%) and as contributing factor in 48 (13.8%) patients with FUO. This will underestimate the actual incidence because SXR and drainage were not performed in all patients. CONCLUSION: Physicians treating critically ill patients should be aware of the high risk of sinusitis and take appropriate preventive measures, including the removal of nasogastric tubes in patients requiring long-term mechanical ventilation. Routine investigation of FUO should include computed tomography scan, SXR or sinus ultrasonography, and drainage should be performed if any abnormalities are found

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

Predicting sepsis-related mortality and ICU admissions from telephone triage information of patients presenting to out-of-hours GP cooperatives with acute infections: A cohort study of linked routine care databases

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) often assess patients with acute infections. It is challenging for GPs to recognize patients needing immediate hospital referral for sepsis while avoiding unnecessary referrals. This study aimed to predict adverse sepsis-related outcomes from telephone triage information of patients presenting to out-of-hours GP cooperatives. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using linked routine care databases from out-of-hours GP cooperatives, general practices, hospitals and mortality registration. We included adult patients with complaints possibly related to an acute infection, who were assessed (clinic consultation or home visit) by a GP from a GP cooperative between 2017-2019. We used telephone triage information to derive a risk prediction model for sepsis-related adverse outcome (infection-related ICU admission within seven days or infection-related death within 30 days) using logistic regression, random forest, and neural network machine learning techniques. Data from 2017 and 2018 were used for derivation and from 2019 for validation. RESULTS: We included 155,486 patients (median age of 51 years; 59% females) in the analyses. The strongest predictors for sepsis-related adverse outcome were age, type of contact (home visit or clinic consultation), patients considered ABCD unstable during triage, and the entry complaints"general malaise", "shortness of breath" and "fever". The multivariable logistic regression model resulted in a C-statistic of 0.89 (95% CI 0.88-0.90) with good calibration. Machine learning models performed similarly to the logistic regression model. A "sepsis alert" based on a predicted probability >1% resulted in a sensitivity of 82% and a positive predictive value of 4.5%. However, most events occurred in patients receiving home visits, and model performance was substantially worse in this subgroup (C-statistic 0.70). CONCLUSION: Several patient characteristics identified during telephone triage of patients presenting to out-of-hours GP cooperatives were associated with sepsis-related adverse outcomes. Still, on a patient level, predictions were not sufficiently accurate for clinical purposes

New clinical prediction model for early recognition of sepsis in adult primary care patients:a prospective diagnostic cohort study of development and external validation

Background Recognising patients who need immediate hospital treatment for sepsis while simultaneously limiting unnecessary referrals is challenging for GPs.Aim To develop and validate a sepsis prediction model for adult patients in primary care.Design and setting This was a prospective cohort study in four out-of-hours primary care services in the Netherlands, conducted between June 2018 and March 2020.Method Adult patients who were acutely ill and received home visits were included. A total of nine clinical variables were selected as candidate predictors, next to the biomarkers C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, and lactate. The primary endpoint was sepsis within 72 hours of inclusion, as established by an expert panel. Multivariable logistic regression with backwards selection was used to design an optimal model with continuous clinical variables. The added value of the biomarkers was evaluated. Subsequently, a simple model using single cut-off points of continuous variables was developed and externally validated in two emergency department populations.Results A total of 357 patients were included with a median age of 80 years (interquartile range 71–86), of which 151 (42%) were diagnosed with sepsis. A model based on a simple count of one point for each of six variables (aged &gt;65 years; temperature &gt;38°C; systolic blood pressure ≤110 mmHg; heart rate &gt;110/min; saturation ≤95%; and altered mental status) had good discrimination and calibration (C-statistic of 0.80 [95% confidence interval = 0.75 to 0.84]; Brier score 0.175). Biomarkers did not improve the performance of the model and were therefore not included. The model was robust during external validation.Conclusion Based on this study’s GP out-of-hours population, a simple model can accurately predict sepsis in acutely ill adult patients using readily available clinical parameters

Potential impact of a new sepsis prediction model for the primary care setting: early health economic evaluation using an observational cohort

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the potential referral rate and cost impact at different cut-off points of a recently developed sepsis prediction model for general practitioners (GPs). DESIGN: Prospective observational study with decision tree modelling. SETTING: Four out-of-hours GP services in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 357 acutely ill adult patients assessed during home visits. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the cost per patient from a healthcare perspective in four scenarios based on different cut-off points for referral of the sepsis prediction model. Second, the number of hospital referrals for the different scenarios is estimated. The potential impact of referral of patients with sepsis on mortality and hospital admission was estimated by an expert panel. Using these study data, a decision tree with a time horizon of 1 month was built to estimate the referral rate and cost impact in case the model would be implemented. RESULTS: Referral rates at a low cut-off (score 2 or 3 on a scale from 0 to 6) of the prediction model were higher than observed for patients with sepsis (99% and 91%, respectively, compared with 88% observed). However, referral was also substantially higher for patients who did not need hospital assessment. As a consequence, cost-savings due to referral of patients with sepsis were offset by increased costs due to unnecessary referral for all cut-offs of the prediction model. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for referral of adult patients with suspected sepsis in the primary care setting using any cut-off point of the sepsis prediction model is not likely to save costs. The model should only be incorporated in sepsis guidelines for GPs if improvement of care can be demonstrated in an implementation study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7026)

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