Search

Background Several professional societies have established nutrition guidelines for patients undergoing HSCT. We surveyed HSCT programs to understand how these compare with clinical practice. Methods Qualitative surveys were emailed to HSCT dietitians. Surveys addressed malnutrition screening; dietary recommendations including nutrition support, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), immune enhancing nutrients, and prebiotics/probiotics; and nutrition-related preventive care screening. Results Twenty adult programs (19 United States (US), 1 Australia) and 3 pediatric programs (3 US) responded. Annual volume across the 22 US programs was 5405 patients, representing 25% of all transplants in the US. Nineteen programs (83%) follow guidelines for nutrition screening and fourteen for nutrition therapy in the inpatient setting (Table 1); six (26%) follow guidelines for screening and therapy in the outpatient setting. All programs adhere to food safety recommendations and 5 (22%) have additional institutional precautions. However, only 2 programs (9%) report frequent adherence to guidelines for use of enteral nutrition. While there are no guidelines for GVHD diet and uncertainty over alternative nutrition practices, 8 programs (35%) follow a stepwise GVHD diet; 4 (17%) allow immunonutrition supplements; 2 (9%) allow prebiotics, and 7 (30%) allow probiotics after the resolution of neutropenia. With regard to adherence to preventive screening recommendations, only 4 programs (17%) screen for diabetes, 6 (26%) screen for hyperlipidemia, and none screen for abdominal obesity. There are no guidelines for vitamin D deficiency screening, but 10 programs (43%) screen for this. Discussion Wide variations in nutrition practices exist across HSCT programs. Similarly, with the exception of food safety recommendations, there are also wide variations in adherence to established nutrition guidelines. The use of enteral nutrition and preventive screening is particularly varied. Efforts are needed to understand barriers to guideline implementation and their correlation to patient outcomes. Further research is needed regarding new interventions such as immunonutrition, prebiotics, and probiotics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Significant heterogeneity exists in the current practices employing ketogenic diet as treatment modality for status epilepticus. • Barriers identified for low rate of utilization of ketogenic diet for status epilepticus by healthcare providers include anticipated difficulty achieving ketosis, lack of expertise, lack of resources, and lack of dietitian support. • Randomized clinical trials supporting efficacy of ketogenic diet for status epilepticus could be instrumental in increased use of ketogenic diet by healthcare providers. The ketogenic diet (KD) is a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet with therapeutic potential in refractory seizures, both in outpatient and inpatient settings. Successful implementation of KD involves a multifaceted, interdisciplinary approach to address anticipated challenges. We sought to characterize the utilization of KD among healthcare providers caring for adults with status epilepticus (SE). We distributed a web-based survey through professional societies, including the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), Neurocritical Care Society (NCS), American Epilepsy Society (AES), Neuro Anesthesia and Critical Care Society (NACCS), and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), and via research contacts. We asked respondents about practice experience and experience using KD as a treatment for SE. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were used to analyze the results. Of 156 respondents, 80% of physicians and 18% of non-physicians reported experience with KD for SE. Anticipated difficulty in achieving ketosis (36.3%), lack of expertise (24.2%), and lack of resources (20.9%) were identified as the most important barriers limiting the utilization of KD. The absence of dietitians (37.1%) or pharmacists (25.7%) support was the most important missing resource. Reasons for stopping KD included perceived ineffectiveness (29.1%), difficulty achieving ketosis (24.6%), and side effects (17.3%). Academic centers had more experience with the use of KD and greater EEG monitoring availability and fewer barriers to its implementation. The need for randomized clinical trials supporting efficacy (36.5%) and better practice guidelines for implementation and maintenance of KD (29.6%) were cited most frequently as factors to increase utilization of KD. This study identifies important barriers to the utilization of KD as a treatment for SE despite evidence supporting its efficacy in the appropriate clinical context, namely lack of resources and interdisciplinary support, and lack of established practice guidelines. Our results highlight the need for future research to improve understanding of the efficacy and safety of KD along with better interdisciplinary collaborations to increase its utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]