Guidelines for specialized nutritional and metabolic support in the critically-ill patient. Update. Consensus SEMICYUC-SENPE: Cardiac patient

Patients with cardiac disease can develop two types of malnutrition: cardiac cachexia, which appears in chronic congestive heart failure, and malnutrition due to the complications of cardiac surgery or any other type of surgery in patients with heart disease. Early enteral nutrition should be attempted if the oral route cannot be used. When cardiac function is severely compromised, enteral nutrition is feasible, but supplementation with parenteral nutrition is sometimes required. Sustained hyperglycemia in the first 24 hours in patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome, whether diabetic or not, is a poor prognostic factor for 30-day mortality. In critically-ill cardiac patients with stable hemodynamic failure, nutritional support of 20-25 kcal/kg/day is effective in maintaining adequate nutritional status. Protein intake should be 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day. Routine polymeric or high protein formulae should be used, according to the patient's prior nutritional status, with sodium and volume restriction according to the patient's clinical situation. The major energy source for myocytes is glutamine, through conversion to glutamate, which also protects the myocardial cell from ischemia in critical situations. Administration of 1 g/day of omega-3 (EPA+DHA) in the form of fish oil can prevent sudden death in the treatment of acute coronary syndrome and can also help to reduce hospital admission for cardiovascular events in patients with chronic heart failure.

Guidelines for specialized nutritional and metabolic support in the critically-ill patient. Update. Consensus SEMICYUC-SENPE: Obese patient

As a response to metabolic stress, obese critically-ill patients have the same risk of nutritional deficiency as the non-obese and can develop protein-energy malnutrition with accelerated loss of muscle mass. The primary aim of nutritional support in these patients should be to minimize loss of lean mass and accurately evaluate energy expenditure. However, routinely used formulae can overestimate calorie requirements if the patient's actual weight is used. Consequently, the use of adjusted or ideal weight is recommended with these formulae, although indirect calorimetry is the method of choice. Controversy surrounds the question of whether a strict nutritional support criterion, adjusted to the patient's requirements, should be applied or whether a certain degree of hyponutrition should be allowed. Current evidence suggested that hypocaloric nutrition can improve results, partly due to a lower rate of infectious complications and better control of hyperglycemia. Therefore, hypocaloric and hyperproteic nutrition, whether enteral or parenteral, should be standard practice in the nutritional support of critically-ill obese patients when not contraindicated. Widely accepted recommendations consist of no more than 60-70% of requirements or administration of 11-14 kcal/kg current body weight/day or 22-25 kcal/kg ideal weight/day, with 2-2.5 g/kg ideal weight/day of proteins. In a broad sense, hypocaloric-hyperprotein regimens can be considered specific to obese critically-ill patients, although the complications related to comorbidities in these patients may require other therapeutic possibilities to be considered, with specific nutrients for hyperglycemia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and sepsis. However, there are no prospective randomized trials with this type of nutrition in this specific population subgroup and the available data are drawn from the general population of critically-ill patients. Consequently, caution should be exercised when interpreting these data.

The association between dietary energy density and type 2 diabetes in Europe: results from the EPIC-InterAct Study

BACKGROUND Observational studies implicate higher dietary energy density (DED) as a potential risk factor for weight gain and obesity. It has been hypothesized that DED may also be associated with risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), but limited evidence exists. Therefore, we investigated the association between DED and risk of T2D in a large prospective study with heterogeneity of dietary intake. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS A case-cohort study was nested within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC) study of 340,234 participants contributing 3.99 million person years of follow-up, identifying 12,403 incident diabetes cases and a random subcohort of 16,835 individuals from 8 European countries. DED was calculated as energy (kcal) from foods (except beverages) divided by the weight (gram) of foods estimated from dietary questionnaires. Prentice-weighted Cox proportional hazard regression models were fitted by country. Risk estimates were pooled by random effects meta-analysis and heterogeneity was evaluated. Estimated mean (sd) DED was 1.5 (0.3) kcal/g among cases and subcohort members, varying across countries (range 1.4-1.7 kcal/g). After adjustment for age, sex, smoking, physical activity, alcohol intake, energy intake from beverages and misreporting of dietary intake, no association was observed between DED and T2D (HR 1.02 (95% CI: 0.93-1.13), which was consistent across countries (I(2) = 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE In this large European case-cohort study no association between DED of solid and semi-solid foods and risk of T2D was observed. However, despite the fact that there currently is no conclusive evidence for an association between DED and T2DM risk, choosing low energy dense foods should be promoted as they support current WHO recommendations to prevent chronic diseases.