Search

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) results from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2). The clinical features and subsequent medical treatment, combined with the impact of a global pandemic, require specific nutritional therapy in hospitalised adults. This document aims to provide Australian and New Zealand clinicians with guidance on managing critically and acutely unwell adult patients hospitalised with COVID‐19. These recommendations were developed using expert consensus, incorporating the documented clinical signs and metabolic processes associated with COVID‐19, the literature from other respiratory illnesses, in particular acute respiratory distress syndrome, and published guidelines for medical management of COVID‐19 and general nutrition and intensive care. Patients hospitalised with COVID‐19 are likely to have preexisting comorbidities, and the ensuing inflammatory response may result in increased metabolic demands, protein catabolism, and poor glycaemic control. Common medical interventions, including deep sedation, early mechanical ventilation, fluid restriction, and management in the prone position, may exacerbate gastrointestinal dysfunction and affect nutritional intake. Nutrition care should be tailored to pandemic capacity, with early gastric feeding commenced using an algorithm to provide nutrition for the first 5–7 days in lower‐nutritional‐risk patients and individualised care for high‐nutritional‐risk patients where capacity allows. Indirect calorimetry should be avoided owing to potential aerosol exposure and therefore infection risk to healthcare providers. Use of a volume‐controlled, higher‐protein enteral formula and gastric residual volume monitoring should be initiated. Careful monitoring, particularly after intensive care unit stay, is required to ensure appropriate nutrition delivery to prevent muscle deconditioning and aid recovery. The infectious nature of SARS‐CoV‐2 and the expected high volume of patient admissions will require contingency planning to optimise staffing resources including upskilling, ensure adequate nutrition supplies, facilitate remote consultations, and optimise food service management. These guidelines provide recommendations on how to manage the aforementioned aspects when providing nutrition support to patients during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Augmented Versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) is the largest blinded enteral nutrition (EN) intervention trial evaluating energy delivery to be conducted in the critically ill. To determine the external validity of TARGET results, nutrition practices in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) are described and compared with international practices.Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for the International Nutrition Surveys, 2007-2013. Data are presented as mean (SD).Results: A total of 17,154 patients (ANZ: n = 2776 vs international n = 14,378) from 923 ICUs (146 and 777, respectively) were included. EN was the most common route of feeding (ANZ: 85%, n = 2365 patients vs international: 84%, n = 12,034; P = .258), and EN concentration was also similar (<1.25 kcal/mL ANZ: 70%, n = 12,396 vs international: 65%, n = 56,891 administrations; P < .001). Protein delivery was substantially below the estimated prescriptions but similar between the regions (0.6 [0.4] g/kg/day vs 0.6 [0.4] g/kg/day; P = .849). Patients in ANZ received slightly more energy (1133 [572] vs 948[536] kcal/day; P < .001), possibly because more energy was prescribed (1947 [348] vs 1747 [376] kcal/day; P < .001), nutrition protocols were more commonly used (98% vs 75%; P < .001) and included recommendations for therapies such as prokinetic agents (87% vs 51%, n = 399; P < .001) and small bowel feeding (62% vs 40%; P < .001) when compared with international ICUs.Conclusions: Key elements of nutrition practice are similar in ANZ and international ICUs. These data can be used to determine the external validity and relevance of TARGET results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nutrition is one of the fundamentals of care provided to critically ill adults. The volume of enteral nutrition received, however, is often much less than prescribed due to multiple functional and process issues. To deliver the prescribed volume and correct the energy deficit associated with enteral nutrition alone, parenteral nutrition can be used in combination (termed "supplemental parenteral nutrition"), but benefits of this method have not been firmly established. A multi-centre, randomised, clinical trial is currently underway to determine if prescribed energy requirements can be provided to critically ill patients by using a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy in the critically ill.Methods/design: This prospective, multi-centre, randomised, stratified, parallel-group, controlled, phase II trial aims to determine whether a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy will reliably and safely increase energy intake when compared to usual care. The study will be conducted for 100 critically ill adults with at least one organ system failure and evidence of insufficient enteral intake from six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Enrolled patients will be allocated to either a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy for 7 days post randomisation or to usual care with enteral nutrition. The primary outcome will be the average energy amount delivered from nutrition therapy over the first 7 days of the study period. Secondary outcomes include protein delivery for 7 days post randomisation; total energy and protein delivery, antibiotic use and organ failure rates (up to 28 days); duration of ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. At both intensive care unit and hospital discharge strength and health-related quality of life assessments will be undertaken. Study participants will be followed up for health-related quality of life, resource utilisation and survival at 90 and 180 days post randomisation (unless death occurs first).Discussion: This trial aims to determine if provision of a supplemental parenteral nutrition strategy to critically ill adults will increase energy intake compared to usual care in Australia and New Zealand. Trial outcomes will guide development of a subsequent larger randomised controlled trial.Trial Registration: NCT01847534 (First registered 5 February 2013, last updated 14 October 2015). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recommendations to facilitate evidence-based nutrition provision for critically ill children exist and indicate the importance of nutrition in this population. Despite these recommendations, it is currently unknown how well Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) are equipped to provide nutrition care., Objectives: The objectives of this project were to describe the dietitian and nutrition-related practices and resources in ANZ PICUs., Methods: A clinician survey was completed as a component of an observational study across nine ANZ PICUs in June 2021. The online survey comprised 31 questions. Data points included reporting on dietetics resourcing, local feeding-related guidelines and algorithms, nutrition screening and assessment practices, anthropometry practices, and indirect calorimetry (IC) device availability and local technical expertise. Data are presented as frequency (%), mean (standard deviation), or median (interquartile range)., Results: Survey responses were received from all nine participating sites. Dietetics staffing per available PICU bed ranged from 0.01 to 0.07 full-time equivalent (median: 0.03 [interquartile range: 0.02-0.04]). Nutrition screening was established in three (33%) units, all of which used the Paediatric Nutrition Screening Tool. Dietitians consulted all appropriate patients (or where capacity allowed) in six (66%) units and on a request or referral basis only in three (33%) units. All units possessed a local feeding guideline or algorithm. An IC device was available in two (22%) PICUs and was used in one of these units., Conclusions: This is the first study to describe the dietitian and nutrition-related practices and resources of ANZ PICUs. Areas for potential improvement include dietetics full-time equivalent, routine nutrition assessment, and access to IC., (Copyright © 2023 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The main aim of this study was to describe nutrition provision in Australian and New Zealand (ANZ) pediatric intensive care units (PICUs), including mode of nutrition and adequacy of enteral nutrition (EN) to PICU day 28. Secondary aims were to determine the proportion of children undergoing dietetics assessment, the average time to this intervention, and the methods for estimation of energy and protein requirements., Methods: This observational study was conducted in all ANZ tertiary-affiliated specialist PICUs. All children ≤18 y of age admitted to the PICU over a 2-wk period and remaining for ≥48 h were included. Data were collected on days 1 to 7, 14, 21, and 28 (unless discharged prior). Data points included oral intake, EN and parenteral nutrition support, estimated energy and protein adequacy, and dietetics assessment details., Results: We enrolled 141 children, of which 79 were boys (56%) and 84 were <2 y of age (60%). Thirty children (73%) received solely EN on day 7 with documented energy and protein targets for 22 (73%). Of these children, 14 (64%) received <75% of their estimated requirements. A dietetics assessment was provided to 80 children (57%), and was significantly higher in those remaining in the PICU beyond the median length of stay (41% in patients staying ≤4.6 d versus 72% in those staying >4.6 d; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: This prospective study of nutrition provision across ANZ PICUs identified important areas for improvement, particularly in EN adequacy and nutrition assessment. Further research to optimize nutrition provision in this setting is urgently needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is frequently used in the intensive care unit (ICU), yet there is a paucity of evidence to guide nutrition management during this therapy. Understanding clinicians' views on nutrition practices during NIV will inform research to address this knowledge gap., Objective: The objective of this study was to describe Australian and New Zealand clinicians' views and perceptions of nutrition management during NIV in critically ill adults., Methods: A cross-sectional quantitative online survey of Australian and New Zealand medical and nursing staff with ≥12 months ICU experience was disseminated through professional organisations via purposive snowball sampling from 29 August to 9 October 2022. Data collection included demographics, current practices, and views and perceptions of nutrition during NIV. Surveys <50% complete were excluded. Data are represented in number (%)., Results: A total of 152 surveys were analysed; 71 (47%) nursing, 69 (45%) medical, and 12 (8%) not specified. There was limited consensus on nutrition management during NIV; however, most clinicians (n = 108, 79%) reported that nutrition during NIV was 'important or very important'. Oral intake was perceived to be the most common route (n = 83, 55%), and 29 (21%) respondents viewed this as the safest. Most respondents (n = 106, 78%) reported that ≤50% of energy targets were met, with gastric enteral nutrition considered most likely to meet targets (n = 55, 40%). Reported nutrition barriers were aspiration risk (n = 87, 64%), fasting for intubation (n = 84, 62%), and nutrition perceived as a lower priority (n = 73, 54%). Reported facilitators were evidence-based guidelines (n = 77, 57%) and an NIV interface compatible with enteral nutrition tube (n = 77, 57%)., Conclusion: ICU medical and nursing staff reported nutrition during NIV to be important; however, there was a lack of consensus on the route of feeding considered to be the safest and most likely to achieve nutrition targets. Interventions to minimise aspiration and fasting, including an interface with nasoenteric tube compatibility, should be explored., (Copyright © 2023 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Economic evaluations of intensive care unit (ICU) interventions have specific considerations, including how to cost ICU stays and accurately measure quality of life in survivors. The aim of this article was to develop best practice recommendations for economic evaluations alongside future ICU randomised controlled trials (RCTs)., Review Methods: We collated our experience based on expert consensus across several recent economic evaluations to provide best-practice, practical recommendations for researchers conducting economic evaluations alongside RCTs in the ICU. Recommendations were structured according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) Task Force Report., Results: We discuss recommendations across the components of economic evaluations, including: types of economic evaluation, the population and sample size, study perspective, comparators, time horizon, choice of health outcomes, measurement of effectiveness, measurement and valuation of quality of life, estimating resources and costs, analytical methods, and the increment cost-effectiveness ratio. We also provide future directions for research with regard to developing more robust economic evaluations for the ICU., Conclusion: Economic evaluations should be built alongside ICU RCTs and should be designed a priori using appropriate follow-up and data collection to capture patient-relevant outcomes. Further work is needed to improve the quality of data available for linkage in Australia as well as developing costing methods for the ICU and appropriate quality of life measurements., (Copyright © 2022 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guideline recommendations for nutrition therapy in critically ill obese adults are inconsistent. This study aimed to describe how dietitians working in an intensive care unit (ICU) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) approach managing the nutritional needs of an obese, critically ill adult., Methods: Invitations to participate were via personal email communication. The survey was also disseminated through a research email list and a dietitian-based newsletter. The multiple-choice case-based survey consisted of 12 questions relating to nutrition prescription and were based on international nutrition guideline recommendations including (i) weight used in energy and protein predictive equations; (ii) energy and protein prescription at ICU admission and day 7, (iii) commencement of enteral nutrition, and; (iv) use of supplemental protein. Data are reported as n (%)., Results: Sixty-three dietitians participated in the survey. Most commonly, adjusted body weight calculated as 'weight at BMI 25 kg/m 2  + 25% excess weight' was used in equations to guide energy (44 respondents, 70%) and protein (39 respondents, 62%) prescription. At day 1, energy and protein prescription was most commonly based on the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) guideline recommendation of 20-25 kcal/kg (39 respondents, 62%) and 1.3 g protein/kg adjusted body weight (36 respondents, 57%). Thirteen (21%) respondents had an indirect calorimetry device in their ICU to measure energy expenditure. On day 7, the ESPEN recommendations were again the most common method used for prescribing energy (30 respondents, 48%) and protein (23 respondents. 48%) needs. Thirty-eight dietitians (60%) reported they would use early supplemental protein to meet protein requirements., Conclusions: ICU dietitians in ANZ who responded to the survey most commonly report using the ESPEN ICU guideline recommendations (20-25 kcal/kg and 1.3 g protein/kg adjusted body weight) to guide nutrition prescription in an obese critically ill adult. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Emma J Ridley is an Editor of Australian Critical Care. This manuscript has been managed throughout the review process by Professor Andrea Marshall. This process prevents authors who also hold an Editorial Role to influence the editorial decisions made. No other conflicts declared., (Copyright © 2020 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) results from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The clinical features and subsequent medical treatment, combined with the impact of a global pandemic, require specific nutritional therapy in hospitalised adults. This document aims to provide Australian and New Zealand clinicians with guidance on managing critically and acutely unwell adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. These recommendations were developed using expert consensus, incorporating the documented clinical signs and metabolic processes associated with COVID-19, the literature from other respiratory illnesses, in particular acute respiratory distress syndrome, and published guidelines for medical management of COVID-19 and general nutrition and intensive care. Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are likely to have preexisting comorbidities, and the ensuing inflammatory response may result in increased metabolic demands, protein catabolism, and poor glycaemic control. Common medical interventions, including deep sedation, early mechanical ventilation, fluid restriction, and management in the prone position, may exacerbate gastrointestinal dysfunction and affect nutritional intake. Nutrition care should be tailored to pandemic capacity, with early gastric feeding commenced using an algorithm to provide nutrition for the first 5-7 days in lower-nutritional-risk patients and individualised care for high-nutritional-risk patients where capacity allows. Indirect calorimetry should be avoided owing to potential aerosole exposure and therefore infection risk to healthcare providers. Use of a volume-controlled, higher-protein enteral formula and gastric residual volume monitoring should be initiated. Careful monitoring, particularly after intensive care unit stay, is required to ensure appropriate nutrition delivery to prevent muscle deconditioning and aid recovery. The infectious nature of SARS-CoV-2 and the expected high volume of patient admissions will require contingency planning to optimise staffing resources including upskilling, ensure adequate nutrition supplies, facilitate remote consultations, and optimise food service management. These guidelines provide recommendations on how to manage the aforementioned aspects when providing nutrition support to patients during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To evaluate the effect of energy-dense vs routine enteral nutrition on day-90 mortality by ethnic group in critically ill adults., Methods: Pre-planned subgroup analysis of the 1,257 New Zealanders in a 4,000-participant randomised trial comparing energy-dense enteral nutrition (1.5kcal/mL) with routine enteral nutrition (1kcal/mL) in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. The primary purpose of this analysis was to evaluate responses to study treatment by ethnic group (European, Māori, and Pacific Peoples) using ethnicity data recorded in the clinical records. The secondary purpose was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients by ethnic group. The primary outcome was day-90 mortality., Results: Among 1,138 patients included in the primary outcome analysis, 165 of 569 (29.0%) assigned to energy-dense nutrition and 156 of 569 patients (27.4%) assigned to routine nutrition died by day 90 (odds ratio; 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92-1.22). There was no statistically significant interaction between treatment allocation and ethnicity with respect to day-90 mortality. Day-90 mortality rates did not vary statistically significantly by ethnic group., Conclusions: Among mechanically ventilated adults in New Zealand ICUs, the effect on day-90 mortality of energy-dense vs routine enteral nutrition did not vary by ethnicity., Competing Interests: Mrs Mackle reports grants from Health Research Council of NZ during the conduct of the study; Dr Ridley reports grants from Baxter Healthcare Corporation, personal fees from Nutricia Australia, personal fees from Baxter Australia, outside the submitted work.

Background: Enteral nutrition (EN) is widely accepted as the preferred method for providing nutrition therapy to critically ill patients. However, optimal energy goals and the best way to achieve those goals are ill defined., Objective: To determine the type and energy concentration of commonly prescribed EN formulations and whether energy-dense formulations (> 1 kcal/mL) are used., Design: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day, point-prevalence study., Participants and Setting: All patients present in 38 Australian and New Zealand intensive care units at 10:00 on 17 November 2010., Main Outcome Measures: Demographic data, admission diagnosis and information on EN administration were collected., Results: 522 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 58.7 (SD, 17.3) years, 65% were male and 79% were mechanically ventilated. On study day, 220/522 patients received EN (43%; 95% CI, 39%-48%). ICU admission source, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) III diagnostic category, APACHE II score and ventilation on study day predicted receipt of EN. Of those receiving EN, 111/220 (51%; 95% CI, 44%-57%) received a 1 kcal/mL formulation and the remainder received an energy-dense formulation - 2 kcal/mL, 39/220 (18%; 95% CI, 13%-23%); and 1.5 kcal/mL, 32/220 (15%; 95% CI, 10%-20%). There were no significant predictors for receipt of energy-dense versus 1 kcal/mL EN., Conclusions: 1 kcal/mL and energy-dense formulations are administered with about equal frequency in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. This finding supports future research into the evaluation of optimal nutritional delivery amounts using EN formulations with differing energy concentrations.

Objective: To determine nutritional therapy practices of patients with severe acute pancreatitis (defined as those receiving critical care management in an intensive care unit or high-dependency unit) in Australia and New Zealand with focus on the choice of enteral nutrition or parenteral nutrition., Design: Prospective observational multicentered study performed at 40 sites in Australia and New Zealand over 6 months., Setting: Intensive care units or high-dependency units within Australia and New Zealand., Patients: Those with severe acute pancreatitis diagnosed by elevated lipase and/or amylase. Patients with chronic pancreatitis were excluded., Measurements: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition, or concurrent enteral nutrition/parenteral nutrition. Secondary outcomes included other aspects of nutritional therapy and the severity and clinical outcomes of acute pancreatitis., Measurements and Main Results: We enrolled 121 patients and 117 were analyzed. The mean age was 61 (sd 17) years and 53% were men. Enteral nutrition was delivered to 58 (50%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 41-59%) and parenteral nutrition to 49 (42%; 95% CI, 33-51%) patients. Parenteral nutrition was more frequently used as the initial therapy (58%; 95% CI, 49-67%) than enteral nutrition (42%; 95% CI, 33-51%). The most common reason for parenteral nutrition prescription was the treating doctor's preference (60%). Enteral nutrition (74%) was more often used than parenteral nutrition (40%) on any individual study day. Concurrent enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition occurred in 28 (24%) patients on 14% of days. Complications of acute pancreatitis requiring critical care unit management were observed in 45 (39%) patients. The median (interquartile range) duration of intensive care unit and hospital stay were 5 (2-10) and 19 (9-31) days, respectively. The hospital mortality rate was 15% (95% CI, 8-21%), and there was a tendency toward higher mortality for patients who only received parenteral nutrition than for those who only received enteral nutrition (28% vs. 7%, p=.06)., Conclusions: For patients with acute pancreatitis requiring critical care unit management in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units, enteral nutrition is used most commonly, but parenteral nutrition is more often used as the initial route of nutritional therapy. Given that clinical practice guidelines currently recommend enteral nutrition as the initial route of nutritional therapy in severe acute pancreatitis, improved education about and dissemination of these guidelines seems warranted.