Development and current use of parenteral nutrition in critical care - an opinion paper.

Critically ill patients depend on artificial nutrition for the maintenance of their metabolic functions and lean body mass, as well as for limiting underfeeding-related complications. Current guidelines recommend enteral nutrition (EN), possibly within the first 48 hours, as the best way to provide the nutrients and prevent infections. EN may be difficult to realize or may be contraindicated in some patients, such as those presenting anatomic intestinal continuity problems or splanchnic ischemia. A series of contradictory trials regarding the best route and timing for feeding have left the medical community with great uncertainty regarding the place of parenteral nutrition (PN) in critically ill patients. Many of the deleterious effects attributed to PN result from inadequate indications, or from overfeeding. The latter is due firstly to the easier delivery of nutrients by PN compared with EN increasing the risk of overfeeding, and secondly to the use of approximate energy targets, generally based on predictive equations: these equations are static and inaccurate in about 70% of patients. Such high uncertainty about requirements compromises attempts at conducting nutrition trials without indirect calorimetry support because the results cannot be trusted; indeed, both underfeeding and overfeeding are equally deleterious. An individualized therapy is required. A pragmatic approach to feeding is proposed: at first to attempt EN whenever and as early as possible, then to use indirect calorimetry if available, and to monitor delivery and response to feeding, and finally to consider the option of combining EN with PN in case of insufficient EN from day 4 onwards.

Enteral versus parenteral nutrition: comparison of energy metabolism in healthy subjects.

Continuous respiratory exchange measurements were performed on 10 healthy young women for 1 h before, 3 h during, and 3 h after either parenteral (iv) or intragastric (ig) administration of a nutrient mixture (52% glucose, 18% amino acid, and 30% lipid energy) infused at twice the postabsorptive resting energy expenditure (REE). REE rose from 0.98 +/- 0.02 (iv) and 0.99 +/- 0.02 kcal/min (ig) postabsorptively to 1.13 +/- 0.03 (iv) and 1.13 +/- 0.02 kcal/min (ig), resulting in nutrient-induced thermogenesis of 10 +/- 0.6 and 9.3 +/- 0.9%, respectively, when related to the metabolizable energy. The respiratory quotient rose from preinfusion values of 0.81 +/- 0.02 (iv) and 0.80 +/- 0.01 (ig) to 0.86 +/- 0.01 (iv) and 0.85 +/- 0.01 (ig). After nutrient administration the respiratory quotient fell significantly to below the preinfusion values. Plasma glucose and insulin concentrations rose during nutrient administration but were higher during the intravenous route. It is concluded that, although the response time to intragastric administration was delayed, the thermic effects and overall substrate oxidations were comparable during intravenous or intragastric administration, albeit, at lower plasma glucose and insulin concentrations via the intragastric route.

Perioperative nutrition is still a surgical orphan: results of a Swiss-Austrian survey.

Background/Objectives:There is strong evidence for the beneficial effects of perioperative nutrition in patients undergoing major surgery. We aimed to evaluate implementation of current guidelines in Switzerland and Austria.Subjects/Methods:A survey was conducted in 173 Swiss and Austrian surgical departments. We inquired about nutritional screening, perioperative nutrition and estimated clinical significance.Results:The overall response rate was 55%, having 69% (54/78) responders in Switzerland and 44% (42/95) in Austria. Most centres were aware of reduced complications (80%) and shorter hospital stay (59%). However, only 20% of them implemented routine nutritional screening. Non-compliance was because of financial (49%) and logistic restrictions (33%). Screening was mainly performed in the outpatient's clinic (52%) or during admission (54%). The nutritional risk score was applied by 14% only; instead, various clinical (78%) and laboratory parameters (56%) were used. Indication for perioperative nutrition was based on preoperative screening in 49%. Although 23% used preoperative nutrition, 68% applied nutritional support pre- and postoperatively. Preoperative nutritional treatment ranged from 3 days (33%), to 5 (31%) and even 7 days (20%).Conclusions:Although malnutrition is a well-recognised risk factor for poor post-operative outcome, surgeons remain reluctant to implement routine screening and nutritional support according to evidence-based guidelines.

Perioperative nutrition in abdominal surgery: recommendations and reality.

Introduction. Preoperative malnutrition is a major risk factor for increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Definition and diagnosis of malnutrition and its treatment is still subject for controversy. Furthermore, practical implementation of nutrition-related guidelines is unknown. Methods. A review of the available literature and of current guidelines on perioperative nutrition was conducted. We focused on nutritional screening and perioperative nutrition in patients undergoing digestive surgery, and we assessed translation of recent guidelines in clinical practice. Results and Conclusions. Malnutrition is a well-recognized risk factor for poor postoperative outcome. The prevalence of malnutrition depends largely on its definition; about 40% of patients undergoing major surgery fulfil current diagnostic criteria of being at nutritional risk. The Nutritional Risk Score is a pragmatic and validated tool to identify patients who should benefit from nutritional support. Adequate nutritional intervention entails reduced (infectious) complications, hospital stay, and costs. Preoperative oral supplementation of a minimum of five days is preferable; depending on the patient and the type of surgery, immune-enhancing formulas are recommended. However, surgeons' compliance with evidence-based guidelines remains poor and efforts are necessary to implement routine nutritional screening and nutritional support.

Perioperative nutrition is still a surgical orphan

Objective: To assess if screening programs and treatment of preoperative malnutrition have been implemented into surgical practice to decrease morbidity. There is strong evidence that postoperative morbidity can be minimized by early identifying and treating patients at nutritional risk before major surgery.The validated nutritional risk score (NRS) is recommended by the European Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition for nutritional screening. It remains unclear whether routine preoperative nutritional assessment and perioperative nutrition is widely implemented.Methods: A survey was conducted in 173 Swiss and Austrian surgical departments. Implementation of nutritional screening, perioperative nutrition, and estimated impact on clinical outcome were assessed. Non-responders were repeatedly contacted by the authors.Results: The overall response rate was 55%, whereby 69% (54/78) of Swiss and 44% (42/95) of Austrian centers responded. Despite 80% and 59% of the responding centers are aware of a reduced complication rate and shortened hospital stay, respectively, only 20% of them implemented routine nutritional screening. Financial (49%) and logistic restrictions (33%) are the predominant reasons against the routine clinical use. Screening is mainly performed either in the outpatient's clinic (52%) or during admission (54%). The NRS is only used by 14%. Instead, various clinical (78%), e.g. BMI and laboratory findings (56%), e.g. albumine, are used. Indication for perioperative nutrition is based on preoperative screening in 49%.While 23% use preoperative nutrition, 68% apply nutritional support pre- and postoperatively. Preoperative nutritional treatment ranged from three days (33%), to five days (31%) and even seven days (20%).Conclusion: Despite malnutrition is well recognized as major risk factor for increased postoperative morbidity, the majority of surgeons are reluctant to implement routine screening and nutritional support. If nutritional assessment is performed, local institutional screening parameters are still preferred. It remains difficult to overcome traditions, and to change surgeon's mind.

Parenteral nutrition in the intensive care unit: cautious use improves outcome.

Critical illness is characterised by nutritional and metabolic disorders, resulting in increased muscle catabolism, fat-free mass loss, and hyperglycaemia. The objective of the nutritional support is to limit fat-free mass loss, which has negative consequences on clinical outcome and recovery. Early enteral nutrition is recommended by current guidelines as the first choice feeding route in ICU patients. However, enteral nutrition alone is frequently associated with insufficient coverage of the energy requirements, and subsequently energy deficit is correlated to worsened clinical outcome. Controlled trials have demonstrated that, in case of failure or contraindications to full enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition administration on top of insufficient enteral nutrition within the first four days after admission could improve the clinical outcome, and may attenuate fat-free mass loss. Parenteral nutrition is cautious if all-in-one solutions are used, glycaemia controlled, and overnutrition avoided. Conversely, the systematic use of parenteral nutrition in the ICU patients without clear indication is not recommended during the first 48 hours. Specific methods, such as thigh ultra-sound imaging, 3rd lumbar vertebra-targeted computerised tomography and bioimpedance electrical analysis, may be helpful in the future to monitor fat-free mass during the ICU stay. Clinical studies are warranted to demonstrate whether an optimal nutritional management during the ICU stay promotes muscle mass and function, the recovery after critical illness and reduces the overall costs.

Preoperative nutritional screening by the specialist instead of the nutritional risk score might prevent excess nutrition: a multivariate analysis of nutritional risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the current study was to assess whether widely used nutritional parameters are correlated with the nutritional risk score (NRS-2002) to identify postoperative morbidity and to evaluate the role of nutritionists in nutritional assessment. METHODS: A randomized trial on preoperative nutritional interventions (NCT00512213) provided the study cohort of 152 patients at nutritional risk (NRS-2002 ≥3) with a comprehensive phenotyping including diverse nutritional parameters (n=17), elaborated by nutritional specialists, and potential demographic and surgical (n=5) confounders. Risk factors for overall, severe (Dindo-Clavien 3-5) and infectious complications were identified by univariate analysis; parameters with P<0.20 were then entered in a multiple logistic regression model. RESULTS: Final analysis included 140 patients with complete datasets. Of these, 61 patients (43.6%) were overweight, and 72 patients (51.4%) experienced at least one complication of any degree of severity. Univariate analysis identified a correlation between few (≤3) active co-morbidities (OR=4.94; 95% CI: 1.47-16.56, p=0.01) and overall complications. Patients screened as being malnourished by nutritional specialists presented less overall complications compared to the not malnourished (OR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.22-0.97, p=0.043). Severe postoperative complications occurred more often in patients with low lean body mass (OR=1.06; 95% CI: 1-1.12, p=0.028). Few (≤3) active co-morbidities (OR=8.8; 95% CI: 1.12-68.99, p=0.008) were related with postoperative infections. Patients screened as being malnourished by nutritional specialists presented less infectious complications (OR=0.28; 95% CI: 0.1-0.78), p=0.014) as compared to the not malnourished. Multivariate analysis identified few co-morbidities (OR=6.33; 95% CI: 1.75-22.84, p=0.005), low weight loss (OR=1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14, p=0.006) and low hemoglobin concentration (OR=2.84; 95% CI: 1.22-6.59, p=0.021) as independent risk factors for overall postoperative complications. Compliance with nutritional supplements (OR=0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.97, p=0.041) and supplementation of malnourished patients as assessed by nutritional specialists (OR=0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.69, p=0.009) were independently associated with decreased infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Nutritional support based upon NRS-2002 screening might result in overnutrition, with potentially deleterious clinical consequences. We emphasize the importance of detailed assessment of the nutritional status by a dedicated specialist before deciding on early nutritional intervention for patients with an initial NRS-2002 score of ≥3.