Search

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., 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.

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.