Dataset Information

Temporal trends in the use of parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients.

ABSTRACT: Clinical practice guidelines recommend enteral over parenteral nutrition in critical illness and do not recommend early initiation. Few data are available on parenteral nutrition use or timing of initiation in the ICU or how this use may have changed over time.We used the Project IMPACT database to evaluate temporal trends in parenteral nutrition use (total and partial parenteral nutrition and lipid supplementation) and timing of initiation in adult ICU admissions from 2001 to 2008. We used χ2 tests and analysis of variance to examine characteristics of patients receiving parenteral nutrition and multilevel multivariate logistic regression models to assess parenteral nutrition use over time, in all patients and in specific subgroups.Of 337,442 patients, 20,913 (6.2%) received parenteral nutrition. Adjusting for patient characteristics, the use of parenteral nutrition decreased modestly over time (adjusted probability, 7.2% in 2001-2002 vs 5.5% in 2007-2008, P<.001). Enteral nutrition use increased simultaneously (adjusted probability, 11.5% in 2001-2002 vs 15.3% in 2007-2008, P<.001). Use of parenteral nutrition declined most rapidly in emergent surgical patients, patients with moderate illness severity, patients in the surgical ICU, and patients admitted to an academic facility (P≤.01 for all interactions with year). When used, parenteral nutrition was initiated a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 1-3), after ICU admission and >90% of patients had parenteral nutrition initiated within 7 days; timing of initiation of parenteral nutrition did not change from 2001 to 2008.Use of parenteral nutrition in US ICUs declined from 2001 through 2008 in all patients and in all examined subgroups, with the majority of parenteral nutrition initiated within the first 7 days in ICU; enteral nutrition use coincidently increased over the same time period.

SUBMITTER: Gershengorn HB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3941247 | biostudies-other | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundParenteral nutrition (PN) is needed to avoid the development of malnutrition when enteral nutrition (EN) is not possible. Our main aim was to assess the current use, complications, and nutrition delivery associated with PN administration in adult critically ill patients, especially when used early and as the initial route. We also assessed the differences between patients who received only PN and those in whom EN was initiated after PN (PN-EN).MethodsA multicenter (n = 37) prospective observational study was performed. Patient clinical characteristics, outcomes, and nutrition-related variables were recorded. Statistical differences between subgroups were analyzed accordingly.ResultsFrom the entire population (n = 629), 186 (29.6%) patients received PN as initial nutrition therapy. Of these, 74 patients (11.7%) also received EN during their ICU stay (i.e., PN-EN subgroup). PN was administered early (<48 h) in the majority of patients (75.3%; n = 140) and the mean caloric (19.94 ± 6.72 Kcal/kg/day) and protein (1.01 ± 0.41 g/kg/day) delivery was similar to other contemporary studies. PN showed similar nutritional delivery when compared with the enteral route. No significant complications were associated with the use of PN. Thirty-two patients (43.3%) presented with EN-related complications in the PN-EN subgroup but received a higher mean protein delivery (0.95 ± 0.43 vs 1.17 ± 0.36 g/kg/day; p = 0.03) compared with PN alone. Once adjusted for confounding factors, patients who received PN alone had a lower mean protein intake (hazard ratio (HR): 0.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.18-0.47; p = 0.001), shorter ICU stay (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.91-0.99; p = 0.008), and fewer days on mechanical ventilation (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.81-0.89; p = 0.001) compared with the PN-EN subgroup.ConclusionThe parenteral route may be safe, even when administered early, and may provide adequate nutrition delivery. Additional EN, when possible, may optimize protein requirements, especially in more severe patients who received initial PN and are expected to have longer ICU stays. NCT Registry: 03634943.

Project description:Background and aimsDespite enteral nutrition (EN) is the preferred route of nutrition in patients with critical illness, EN is not always able to provide optimal nutrient provision and parenteral nutrition (PN) is needed. This is strongly associated with gastrointestinal (GI) complications, a feature of gastrointestinal dysfunction and disease severity. The aim of the present study was to investigate factors associated with the need of PN after start of EN, together with the use and complications associated with EN.MethodsAdult patients admitted to 38 Spanish intensive care units (ICUs) between April and July 2018, who needed EN therapy were included in a prospective observational study. The characteristics of EN-treated patients and those who required PN after start EN were analyzed (i.e., clinical, laboratory and scores).ResultsOf a total of 443 patients, 43 (9.7%) received PN. One-third (29.3%) of patients presented GI complications, which were more frequent among those needing PN (26% vs. 60%, p = 0.001). No differences regarding mean energy and protein delivery were found between patients treated only with EN (n = 400) and those needing supplementary or total PN (n = 43). Abnormalities in lipid profile, blood proteins, and inflammatory markers, such as C-Reactive Protein, were shown in those patients needing PN. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) on ICU admission (Hazard ratio [HR]:1.161, 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.053-1.281, p = 0.003) and modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score (HR:1.311, 95% CI:1.098-1.565, p = 0.003) were higher among those who needed PN. In the multivariate analysis, higher SOFA score (HR:1.221, 95% CI:1.057-1.410, p = 0.007) and higher triglyceride levels on ICU admission (HR:1.004, 95% CI:1.001-1.007, p = 0.003) were associated with an increased risk for the need of PN, whereas higher albumin levels on ICU admission (HR:0.424, 95% CI:0.210-0.687, p = 0.016) was associated with lower need of PN.ConclusionA higher SOFA and nutrition-related laboratory parameters on ICU admission may be associated with the need of PN after starting EN therapy. This may be related with a higher occurrence of GI complications, a feature of GI dysfunction.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03634943.

Project description: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.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).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.NCT01847534 (First registered 5 February 2013, last updated 14 October 2015).

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the critically ill, energy delivery from enteral nutrition (EN) is often less than the estimated energy requirement. Parenteral nutrition (PN) as a supplement to EN may increase energy delivery. We aimed to determine if an individually titrated supplemental PN strategy commenced 48-72 hours following ICU admission and continued for up to 7 days would increase energy delivery to critically ill adults compared to usual care EN delivery. METHODS:This study was a prospective, parallel group, phase II pilot trial conducted in six intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated adults with at least one organ failure and EN delivery below 80% of estimated energy requirement in the previous 24 hours received either a supplemental PN strategy (intervention group) or usual care EN delivery. EN in the usual care group could be supplemented with PN if EN remained insufficient after usual methods to optimise delivery were attempted. RESULTS:There were 100 patients included in the study and 99 analysed. Overall, 71% of the study population were male, with a mean (SD) age of 59 (17) years, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 18.2 (6.7) and body mass index of 29.6 (5.8) kg/m2. Significantly greater energy (mean (SD) 1712 (511) calories vs. 1130 (601) calories, p?<?0.0001) and proportion of estimated energy requirement (mean (SD) 83 (25) % vs. 53 (29) %, p?<?0.0001) from EN and/or PN was delivered to the intervention group compared to usual care. Delivery of protein and proportion of estimated protein requirements were also greater in the intervention group (mean (SD) 86 (25) g, 86 (23) %) compared to usual care (mean (SD) 53 (29) g, 51 (25) %, p?<?0.0001). Antibiotic use, ICU and hospital length of stay, mortality and functional outcomes were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:This individually titrated supplemental PN strategy applied over 7 days significantly increased energy delivery when compared to usual care delivery. Clinical and functional outcomes were similar between the two patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinical Trial registry details: NCT01847534 (First registered 22 April 2013, last updated 31 July 2016).

Project description:Nutrition guidelines recommendations differ on the use of parenteral nutrition (PN), and existing clinical trial data are inconclusive. Our recent observational data show that amounts of energy/protein received early in the intensive care unit (ICU) affect patient mortality, particularly for inadequate nutrition intake in patients with body mass indices (BMIs) of <25 or >35. Thus, we hypothesized increased nutrition delivery via supplemental PN (SPN)?+?enteral nutrition (EN) to underweight and obese ICU patients would improve 60-day survival and quality of life (QoL) versus usual care (EN alone).In this multicenter, randomized, controlled pilot trial completed in 11 centers across four countries, adult ICU patients with acute respiratory failure expected to require mechanical ventilation for >72 hours and with a BMI of <25 or ?35 were randomized to receive EN alone or SPN?+?EN to reach 100% of their prescribed nutrition goal for 7 days after randomization. The primary aim of this pilot trial was to achieve a 30% improvement in nutrition delivery.In total, 125 patients were enrolled. Over the first 7 post-randomization ICU days, patients in the SPN?+?EN arm had a 26% increase in delivered calories and protein, whereas patients in the EN-alone arm had a 22% increase (both p?<?0.001). Surgical ICU patients received poorer EN nutrition delivery and had a significantly greater increase in calorie and protein delivery when receiving SPN versus medical ICU patients. SPN proved feasible to deliver with our prescribed protocol. In this pilot trial, no significant outcome differences were observed between groups, including no difference in infection risk. Potential, although statistically insignificant, trends of reduced hospital mortality and improved discharge functional outcomes and QoL outcomes in the SPN?+?EN group versus the EN-alone group were observed.Provision of SPN?+?EN significantly increased calorie/protein delivery over the first week of ICU residence versus EN alone. This was achieved with no increased infection risk. Given feasibility and consistent encouraging trends in hospital mortality, QoL, and functional endpoints, a full-scale trial of SPN powered to assess these clinical outcome endpoints in high-nutritional-risk ICU patients is indicated-potentially focusing on the more poorly EN-fed surgical ICU setting.NCT01206166.

Dataset Information

Temporal trends in the use of parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets