Search

Background: Children who are critically ill are often reliant on enteral and oral nutrition support. However, there is limited evidence to guide "what" to prescribe, and current practice is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to describe enteral nutrition prescription in children ≤2 years of age in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The secondary objectives were to describe oral nutrition support practices and factors associated with the use of increased energy and protein density nutrition support. Methods: Children ≤2 years of age admitted to participating PICUs over a 2‐week period in June 2021 were enrolled. Data were collected on PICU admission days 1 to 7, 14, 21, and 28 on the mode of nutrition, enteral and oral nutrition support prescription, and dietitian intervention. Results: Eighty‐four children were included (49 [58%] male; 79 [94%] ≤1 year of age). Enteral nutrition was administered to 79 (94%) children (with expressed breast milk in 45 [57%]). Forty‐three children received formula as enteral nutrition. Increased energy and protein density formulas were provided to 14 (33%) children enterally, with concentrated standard infant formula powder being the most common (5 [12%]). Among children offered oral intake (22; 26%), three (14%) received oral nutrition support. Children who received increased energy and protein density enteral nutrition were more likely to receive dietitian intervention (P = 0.002). Conclusion: In children ≤2 years of age admitted to PICU, expressed breast milk was provided to half of those requiring enteral nutrition and oral nutrition support prescription was infrequent. One third of children receiving formula via enteral nutrition received an increased energy and protein density feed, and this was strongly associated with dietitian intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critically ill patients experience high rates of malnutrition and significant muscle loss during their intensive care unit (ICU) admission, impacting recovery. Nutrition is likely to play an important role in mitigating the development and progression of malnutrition and muscle loss observed in ICU, yet definitive clinical trials of nutrition interventions in ICU have failed to show benefit. As improvements in the quality of medical care mean that sicker patients are able to survive the initial insult, combined with an aging and increasingly comorbid population, it is anticipated that ICU length of stay will continue to increase. This review aims to discuss nutrition considerations unique to critically ill patients who have persistent critical illness, defined as an ICU stay of >10 days. A discussion of nutrition concepts relevant to patients with persistent critical illness will include energy and protein metabolism, prescription, and delivery; monitoring of nutrition at the bedside; and the role of the healthcare team in optimizing nutrition support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Personalization of ICU nutrition is essential to future of critical care. Recommendations from American/European guidelines and practice suggestions incorporating recent literature are presented. Low-dose enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN) can be started within 48 h of admission. While EN is preferred route of delivery, new data highlight PN can be given safely without increased risk; thus, when early EN is not feasible, provision of isocaloric PN is effective and results in similar outcomes. Indirect calorimetry (IC) measurement of energy expenditure (EE) is recommended by both European/American guidelines after stabilization post-ICU admission. Below-measured EE (~ 70%) targets should be used during early phase and increased to match EE later in stay. Low-dose protein delivery can be used early (~ D1-2) (< 0.8 g/kg/d) and progressed to ≥ 1.2 g/kg/d as patients stabilize, with consideration of avoiding higher protein in unstable patients and in acute kidney injury not on CRRT. Intermittent-feeding schedules hold promise for further research. Clinicians must be aware of delivered energy/protein and what percentage of targets delivered nutrition represents. Computerized nutrition monitoring systems/platforms have become widely available. In patients at risk of micronutrient/vitamin losses (i.e., CRRT), evaluation of micronutrient levels should be considered post-ICU days 5–7 with repletion of deficiencies where indicated. In future, we hope use of muscle monitors such as ultrasound, CT scan, and/or BIA will be utilized to assess nutrition risk and monitor response to nutrition. Use of specialized anabolic nutrients such as HMB, creatine, and leucine to improve strength/muscle mass is promising in other populations and deserves future study. In post-ICU setting, continued use of IC measurement and other muscle measures should be considered to guide nutrition. Research on using rehabilitation interventions such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to guide post-ICU exercise/rehabilitation prescription and using anabolic agents such as testosterone/oxandrolone to promote post-ICU recovery is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critically ill patients with obesity have unique and complex nutritional needs, with clinical practice guidelines conflicting regarding recommended energy targets. The aim of this systematic review was to 1) describe measured resting energy expenditure (mREE) reported in the literature and; 2) compare mREE to predicted energy targets using the European (ESPEN) and American (ASPEN) guideline recommendations when indirect calorimetry is not available in critically ill patients with obesity. The protocol was registered apriori and literature was searched until 17th March, 2022. Original studies were included if they reported mREE using indirect calorimetry in critically ill patients with obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m2). Group-level mREE data was reported as per the primary publication using mean ± standard deviation or median [interquartile range]. Where individual patient data was available, Bland–Altman analysis was used to assess mean bias (95% limits of agreement) between guideline recommendations and mREE targets (i.e. ASPEN for BMI 30–50, 11–14 kcal/kg actual weight compared to 70% mREE and ESPEN 20–25 kcal/kg adjusted weight compared to 100% mREE). Accuracy was assessed by the percentage (%) of estimates within ±10% of mREE targets. After searching 8019 articles, 24 studies were included. mREE ranged from 1607 ± 385 to 2919 [2318–3362]kcal and 12–32kcal/actual body weight. For the ASPEN recommendations of 11–14 kcal/kg, a mean bias of −18% (−50% to +13%) and 4% (−36% to +44%) was observed, respectively (n = 104). For the ESPEN recommendations 20–25 kcal/kg, a bias of −22% (−51% to +7%) and −4% (−43% to +34%), was observed, respectively (n = 114). The guideline recommendations were able to accurately predict mREE targets on 30%–39% occasions (11–14 kcal/kg actual) and 15%–45% occasions (20–25 kcal/kg adjusted), for ASPEN and ESPEN recommendations, respectively. Measured energy expenditure in critically ill patients with obesity is variable. Energy targets generated using predictive equations recommended in both the ASPEN and ESPEN clinical guidelines have poor agreement with mREE and are frequently not able to accurately predict within ±10% of mREE, most commonly underestimating energy needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]