scholarly journals Optimal Time and Target for Evaluating Energy Delivery after Adjuvant Feeding with Small Bowel Enteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients at High Nutrition Risk

Nutrients ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 645
Author(s):  
Wei-Ning Wang ◽  
Mei-Fang Yang ◽  
Chen-Yu Wang ◽  
Chiann-Yi Hsu ◽  
Bor-Jen Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Energy Intake ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Protein Intake ◽  
Optimal Time ◽  
Nutrition Risk ◽  
Energy Delivery ◽  
Achievement Rate

Small bowel enteral nutrition (SBEN) may improve nutrient delivery to critically ill patients intolerant of gastric enteral nutrition. However, the optimal time and target for evaluating SBEN efficacy are unknown. This retrospective cohort study investigates these parameters in 55 critically ill patients at high nutrition risk (modified NUTRIC score ≥ 5). Daily actual energy intake was recorded from 3 days before SBEN initiation until 7 days thereafter. The energy achievement rate (%) was calculated as follows: (actual energy intake/estimated energy requirement) × 100. The optimal time was determined from the day on which energy achievement rate reached >60% post-SBEN. Assessment results were as follows: median APACHE II score, 27; SOFA score, 10.0; modified NUTRIC score, 7; and median time point of SBEN initiation, ICU day 8. The feeding volume, energy and protein intake, and achievement rate (%) of energy and protein intake increased significantly after SBEN (p < 0.001). An energy achievement rate less than 65% 3 days after SBEN was significantly associated with increased mortality after adjusting for confounding factors (odds ratio, 4.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.44–17.07). SBEN improves energy delivery in critically ill patients who are still at high nutrition risk after 1 week of stomach enteral nutrition.

scholarly journals Comparison of Feeding Efficiency and Hospital Mortality between Small Bowel and Nasogastric Tube Feeding in Critically Ill Patients at High Nutritional Risk

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. 2009
Author(s):  
Wei-Ning Wang ◽  
Chen-Yu Wang ◽  
Chiann-Yi Hsu ◽  
Pin-Kuei Fu
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Energy Intake ◽  
Nasogastric Tube ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Nutrition Risk ◽  
Achievement Rate

Nasogastric tube enteral nutrition (NGEN) should be initiated within 48 h for patients at high nutritional risk. However, whether small bowel enteral nutrition (SBEN) should be routinely used instead of NGEN to improve hospital mortality remains unclear. We retrospectively analyzed 113 critically ill patients with modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score ≥ 5 and feeding volume < 750 mL/day in the first week of their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Age, sex, mNUTRIC score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score were matched in the SBEN (n = 48) and NGEN (n = 65) groups. Through a univariate analysis, factors associated with hospital mortality were SBEN group (hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31–1.00), Simplified Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score on day 7 (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03–1.22), and energy intake achievement rate < 65% (HR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.25–5.11). A multivariate analysis indicated that energy intake achievement rate < 65% on the third follow-up day (HR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.12–4.69) was the only factor independently associated with mortality. We suggest initiation of SBEN on the seventh ICU day before parenteral nutrition initiation for critically ill patients at high nutrition risk.

scholarly journals Comparison of Feeding Efficacy and Hospital Mortality Between Small Bowel and Nasogastric Tube Enteral Nutrition in Critical Illness at High Nutritional Risk

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 1152-1152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei-Ning Wang ◽  
Pin-Kuei Fu ◽  
Chiann-Yi Hsu
Keyword(s):  
Small Bowel ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Hospital Mortality ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Energy Intake ◽  
Nasogastric Tube ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Protein Intake ◽  
Nutritional Risk ◽  
Achievement Rate

Abstract Objectives The current guidelines recommend that early enteral nutrition (EN) support by nasogastric tube enteral nutrition (NGEN) should be initiated within 48 h in the critically ill patients at high nutritional risk. Small bowel EN (SBEN) was suggested for those who are NGEN intolerance. Our previous study showed adjuvant feeding with SBEN at 7th ICU day may improve feeding efficacy and have survival benefit for those energy achievement rate more than 65% at the 3rd day after SBEN. However, the comparison of feeding efficacy and hospital mortality between SBEN and NGEN remains unclear. Methods A retrospective cohort study enrolled 113 critically ill patients at high nutrition risk (modified NUTRIC score≧5) and at inadequate feeding volume (&lt; 750 ml/day) in the first week of ICU stay. Patients were classified into SBEN (N = 48) and NGEN (N = 65) group at 8th ICU day (enrolled day). Daily actual energy intake was recorded after enrolled day in each group and feeding efficiency was compared between two groups. Cox regression analysis was used to assess factors associated with hospital mortality. Results The feeding volume, energy and protein intake, and achievement rate (%) of energy and protein intake increased significantly in the SBEN group at the 3rd following day (P &lt; 0.001). Hospital mortality in this cohort was 43.3%. By univariate analysis, SBEN group (HR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.31–1.00, P = 0.049), SOFA score at day 7 (HR:1.12, 95% CI: 1.03–1.22, P = 0.009) and energy intake achievement rate &lt; 65% at the 3rd followed-up day (HR: 2.53, 95% CI: 1.25–5.11, P = 0.010) were associated with hospital mortality. By multivariate analysis, the only factor associated hospital mortality in this cohort was energy intake achievement rate &lt; 65% at the 3rd followed-up day (HR: 2.29, 95% CI: 1.12–4.69, P = 0.023). Conclusions SBEN improves energy delivery and might be reduced in hospital mortality in critically ill patients at high nutritional risk after 1 week of stomach enteral nutrition in ICU. Funding Sources None.

scholarly journals Targeted Energy Intake Is the Important Determinant of Clinical Outcomes in Medical Critically Ill Patients with High Nutrition Risk

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1731 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen-Yu Wang ◽  
Pin-Kuei Fu ◽  
Chun-Te Huang ◽  
Chao-Hsiu Chen ◽  
Bor-Jen Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Nutritional Status ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Energy Intake ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Risk Group ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
High Energy ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Nutrition Risk

The clinical conditions of critically ill patients are highly heterogeneous; therefore, nutrient requirements should be personalized based on the patient’s nutritional status. However, nutritional status is not always considered when evaluating a patient’s nutritional therapy in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to assess the effect of ICU patients’ nutrition risk status on the association between energy intake and clinical outcomes (i.e., hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality). The nutrition risk of critically ill patients was classified as either high- or low-nutrition risk using the modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill score. There were 559 (75.3%) patients in the high nutrition risk group, while 183 patients were in the low nutrition risk group. Higher mean energy intake was associated with lower hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality rates in patients with high nutrition risk; while there were no significant associations between mean energy intake and clinical outcomes in patients with low nutrition risk. Further examination of the association between amount of energy intake and clinical outcomes showed that patients with high nutrition risk who consumed at least 800 kcal/day had significantly lower hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality rates. Although patients with low nutrition risk did not benefit from high energy intake, patients with high nutrition risk are suggested to consume at least 800 kcal/day in order to reduce their mortality rate in the medical ICU.

scholarly journals Semi-elemental versus polymeric formula for enteral nutrition in brain-injured critically ill patients: a randomized trial

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Carteron ◽  
Emmanuel Samain ◽  
Hadrien Winiszewski ◽  
Gilles Blasco ◽  
Anne-Sophie Balon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Energy Intake ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Daily Energy Intake ◽  
Gastrointestinal Tolerance ◽  
Brain Injured ◽  
Daily Energy ◽  
Polymeric Formula

Abstract Background The properties of semi-elemental enteral nutrition might theoretically improve gastrointestinal tolerance in brain-injured patients, known to suffer gastroparesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of a semi-elemental versus a polymeric formula for enteral nutrition (EN) in brain-injured critically ill patients. Methods Prospective, randomized study including brain-injured adult patients [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤ 8] with an expected duration of mechanical ventilation > 48 h. Intervention: an enteral semi-elemental (SE group) or polymeric (P group) formula. EN was started within 36 h after admission to the intensive care unit and was delivered according to a standardized nurse-driven protocol. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who received both 60% of the daily energy goal at 3 days and 100% of the daily energy goal at 5 days after inclusion. Tolerance of EN was assessed by the rate of gastroparesis, vomiting and diarrhea. Results Respectively, 100 and 95 patients were analyzed in the SE and P groups: Age (57[44–65] versus 55[40–65] years) and GCS (6[3–7] versus 5[3–7]) did not differ between groups. The percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint was similar (46% and 48%, respectively; relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.05 (0.78–1.42); p = 0.73). The mean daily energy intake was, respectively, 20.2 ± 6.3 versus 21.0 ± 6.5 kcal/kg/day (p = 0.42). Protein intakes were 1.3 ± 0.4 versus 1.1 ± 0.3 g/kg/day (p < 0.0001). Respectively, 18% versus 12% patients presented gastroparesis (p = 0.21), and 16% versus 8% patients suffered from diarrhea (p = 0.11). No patient presented vomiting in either group. Conclusion Semi-elemental compared to polymeric formula did not improve daily energy intake or gastrointestinal tolerance of enteral nutrition. Trial registration EudraCT/ID-RCB 2012-A00078-35 (registered January 17, 2012).

scholarly journals Enteral nutritional intake in adult korean intensivecare patients

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyunjung Kim ◽  
Nancy A. Stotts ◽  
Erika S. Froelicher ◽  
Marguerite M. Engler ◽  
Carol Porter
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Energy Intake ◽  
Enteral Feeding ◽  
Protein Intake ◽  
Nutritional Intake ◽  
Gastrointestinal Intolerance ◽  
Critically Ill Adults ◽  
Prolonged Feeding

BackgroundNutritional support is important for maximizing clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, but enteral nutritional intake is often inadequate.ObjectiveTo assess the nutritional intake of energy and protein during the first 4 days after initiation of enteral feeding and to examine the relationship between intake and interruptions of enteral feeding in Korean patients in intensive care.MethodsA cohort of 34 critically ill adults who had a primary medical diagnosis and received bolus enteral feeding were studied prospectively. Energy and protein requirements were determined by using the Harris-Benedict equation and the American Dietetic Association equation. Energy and protein intake prescribed and received and the reasons for and lengths of feeding interruptions were recorded for 4 consecutive days immediately after enteral feeding began.ResultsAlthough the differences between requirements and intakes of energy and protein decreased significantly, patients did not receive required energy and protein intake during the 4 days of the study. Energy intake prescribed was consistently less than required on each of the 4 days. Enteral nutrition was withheld for a mean of 6 hours per patient for the 4 days. Prolonged feeding interruptions due to gastrointestinal intolerance (r= –0.874; P &lt; .001) and procedures (r= –0.839; P = .005) were negatively associated with the percentage of prescribed energy received.ConclusionsEnteral nutritional intake was insufficient in bolus-fed Korean intensive care patients because of prolonged feeding interruptions and underprescription of enteral nutrition. Feeding interruptions due to gastrointestinal intolerance and procedures were the main contributors to inadequate energy intake. (American Journal of Critical Care. 2013;22:126–135)

scholarly journals Impact of Propofol Sedation upon Caloric Overfeeding and Protein Inadequacy in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Nutrition Support

Pharmacy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 121
Author(s):  
Roland N. Dickerson ◽  
Christopher T. Buckley
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Enteral Nutrition ◽  
Parenteral Nutrition ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Protein Intake ◽  
Lipid Emulsion ◽  
Caloric Intake ◽  
Nutrition Therapy ◽  
Nutrition Support

Propofol, a commonly used sedative in the intensive care unit, is formulated in a 10% lipid emulsion that contributes 1.1 kcals per mL. As a result, propofol can significantly contribute to caloric intake and can potentially result in complications of overfeeding for patients who receive concurrent enteral or parenteral nutrition therapy. In order to avoid potential overfeeding, some clinicians have empirically decreased the infusion rate of the nutrition therapy, which also may have detrimental effects since protein intake may be inadequate. The purpose of this review is to examine the current literature regarding these issues and provide some practical suggestions on how to restrict caloric intake to avoid overfeeding and simultaneously enhance protein intake for patients who receive either parenteral or enteral nutrition for those patients receiving concurrent propofol therapy.

scholarly journals Full versus Trophic Feeds in Critically Ill Adults with High and Low Nutritional Risk Scores: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Nutrients ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 3518
Author(s):  
Chen-Yu Wang ◽  
Pin-Kuei Fu ◽  
Wen-Cheng Chao ◽  
Wei-Ning Wang ◽  
Chao-Hsiu Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Stay ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Nutrition Risk ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Trophic Feeding

Although energy intake might be associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, it remains unclear whether full or trophic feeding is suitable for critically ill patients with high or low nutrition risk. We conducted a prospective study to determine which feeding energy intakes were associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with high or low nutrition risk. This was an investigator-initiated, single center, single blind, randomized controlled trial. Critically ill patients were allocated to either high or low nutrition risk based on their Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill score, and then randomized to receive either the full or the trophic feeding. The feeding procedure was administered for six days. No significant differences were observed in hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortalities, the length of ventilator dependency, or ICU and hospital stay among the four groups. There were no associations between energy and protein intakes and hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortalities in any of the four groups. However, protein intake was positively associated with the length of hospital stay and ventilator dependency in patients with low nutrition risk receiving trophic feeding. Full or trophic feeding in critically ill patients showed no associations with clinical outcomes, regardless of nutrition risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document