Search

Over the past decade, the use of supraphysiologic doses of micronutrients (also called metabolic resuscitation) in critically ill patients has gained significant attention. Building upon preclinical and observational human data, numerous randomized controlled trials have tested the impact of multiple micronutrients on various outcomes in critically ill patients. At the 2022 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Preconference Course, three world‐renowned speakers delivered talks on the (1) overall role of micronutrients and, specifically, (2) selenium and vitamin C and (3) vitamin D and zinc in critically ill patients. Here, the case presentation and discussion from the postsession question and answer period are presented. The moderator for this session was Jose Pimiento, MD, and the speakers and panelists were Christian Stoppe, MD, Todd Rice, MD, and Daren Heyland, MD. Key points: 1.Micronutrient deficiencies are common in intensive care unit patients and may impact outcomes.2.To date, data from randomized controlled trials do not support the use of supraphysiologic doses of micronutrients (vitamin C, vitamin D, selenium, or zinc) in critically ill patients.3.Because of an increased risk of bias, single‐center trials are less reliable than multicenter trials; however, single‐center trials are necessary for the evidence development pathway.4.Given the heterogeneity across micronutrient trials, studies are underway to test micronutrients in burn and cardiac surgery patients, which may identify subpopulations of critically ill patients that may benefit from supraphysiologic micronutrient (therapy). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inflammation and oxidative stress represent physiological response mechanisms to different types of stimuli and injury during critical illness. Its proper regulation is fundamental to cellular and organismal survival and are paramount to outcomes and recovery from critical illness. A proper maintenance of the delicate balance between inflammation, oxidative stress, and immune response is crucial for resolution from critical illness with important implications for patient outcome. The extent of inflammation and oxidative stress under normal conditions is limited by the antioxidant defense system of the human body, whereas the antioxidant capacity is commonly significantly compromised, and serum levels of micronutrients and vitamins significantly depleted in patients who are critically ill. Hence, the provision of antioxidants and anti‐inflammatory nutrients may help to reduce the extent of oxidative stress and therefore improve clinical outcomes in patients who are critically ill. As existing evidence of the beneficial effects of antioxidant supplementation in patients who are critically ill is still unclear, actual findings about the most promising anti‐inflammatory and antioxidative candidates selenium, vitamin C, zinc, and vitamin D will be discussed in this narrative review. The existing evidence provided so far demonstrates that several factors need to be considered to determine the efficacy of an antioxidant supplementation strategy in patients who are critically ill and indicates the need for adequately designed multicenter prospective randomized control trials to evaluate the clinical significance of different types and doses of micronutrients and vitamins in selected groups of patients with different types of critical illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To describe the characteristics of hospital‐based, patient‐mediated interventions and their impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: Health literature databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched in August 2021. Backward and forward citation searching was conducted. Review Methods: Studies investigating patient‐mediated interventions, targeted at adult hospitalized patients were eligible. Data were extracted related to study and intervention characteristics. Narrative synthesis was used to understand intervention impact on patient, clinician and organization outcomes (as per a framework). Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Results: Thirty‐three studies, reporting 18 interventions, were included. Twelve interventions prompted patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns and six interventions encouraged patients to provide feedback about clinical practice. Across all interventions, there was evidence that patients used patient‐mediated interventions and that they may improve patient communication. Healthcare professional outcomes were mixed for actual/intended use, acceptability and usefulness of interventions; yet there was some evidence of healthcare professional behaviour change. Interventions that encouraged patients to report health information about their own health/needs/concerns appeared more successful than other types of interventions. Conclusions: There is some evidence that hospital‐based patient‐mediated interventions may influence patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour. Patient‐mediated interventions that encourage patients to report patient data before a clinical encounter may be more impactful than interventions that encourage patient feedback during or post‐encounter. Impact To date, most patient‐mediated intervention research has been conducted in primary care settings; we uncovered the types of patient‐mediated interventions that have been trialled in hospitals. We found that patient communication and healthcare professional behaviour may be influenced by these patient‐mediated interventions. Future researchers could explore the suitability and effectiveness of a wider range of hospital‐based patient‐mediated interventions. No patient or public contribution: There was no funding to remunerate a patient/member of the public for this review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]