Gordon S. Sacks

Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (sccm) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (a.s.p.e.n.)

A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM are both nonprofit organizations composed of multidisciplinary healthcare professionals. The mission of A.S.P.E.N. is to improve patient care by advancing the science and practice of clinical nutrition and metabolism. The mission of SCCM is to secure the highest quality care for all critically ill and injured patients. Guideline Limitations: These A.S.P.E.N.−SCCM Clinical Guidelines are based on general conclusions of health professionals who, in developing such guidelines, have balanced potential benefits to be derived from a particular mode of medical therapy against certain risks inherent with such therapy. However, practice guidelines are not intended as absolute requirements. The use of these practice guidelines does not in any way project or guarantee any specific benefit in outcome or survival. The judgment of the healthcare professional based on individual circumstances of the patient must always take precedence over the recommendations in these guidelines. The guidelines offer basic recommendations that are supported by review and analysis of the current literature, other national and international guidelines, and a blend of expert opinion and clinical practicality. The population of critically ill patients in an intensive care unit (ICU) is not homogeneous. Many of the studies on which the guidelines are based are limited by sample size, patient heterogeneity, variability in disease severity, lack of baseline nutritional status, and insufficient statistical power for analysis. Periodic Guideline Review and Update: This particular report is an update and expansion of guidelines published by A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM in 2009 (1). Governing bodies of both A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM have mandated that these guidelines be updated every three to five years. The database of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that served as the platform for the analysis of the literature was assembled in a joint “harmonization process” with the Canadian Clinical Guidelines group. Once completed, each group operated separately in their interpretation of the studies and derivation of guideline recommendations (2). The current A.S.P.E.N. and SCCM guidelines included in this paper were derived from data obtained via literature searches by the authors through December 31, 2013. Although the committee was aware of landmark studies published after this date, these data were not included in this manuscript. The process by which the literature was evaluated necessitated a common end date for the search review. Adding a last-minute landmark trial would have introduced bias unless a formalized literature search was re-conducted for all sections of the manuscript. Target Patient Population for Guideline: The target of these guidelines is intended to be the adult (≥ 18 years) critically ill patient expected to require a length of stay (LOS) greater than 2 or 3 days in a medical ICU (MICU) or surgical ICU (SICU). The current guidelines were expanded to include a number of additional subsets of patients who met the above criteria, but were not included in the previous 2009 guidelines. Specific patient populations addressed by these expanded and updated guidelines include organ failure (pulmonary, renal, and liver), acute pancreatitis, surgical subsets (trauma, traumatic brain injury [TBI], open abdomen [OA], and burns), sepsis, postoperative major surgery, chronic critically ill, and critically ill obese. These guidelines are directed toward generalized patient populations but, like any other management strategy in the ICU, nutrition therapy should be tailored to the individual patient. Target Audience: The intended use of these guidelines is for all healthcare providers involved in nutrition therapy of the critically ill, primarily physicians, nurses, dietitians, and pharmacists. Methodology: The authors compiled clinical questions reflecting key management issues in nutrition therapy. A committee of multidisciplinary experts in clinical nutrition composed of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and dietitians was jointly convened by the two societies.

Review of the Refeeding Syndrome

Refeeding syndrome describes a constellation of metabolic disturbances that occur as a result of reinstitution of nutrition to patients who are starved or severely malnourished. Patients can develop fluid and electrolyte disorders, especially hypophosphatemia, along with neurologic, pulmonary, cardiac, neuromuscular, and hematologic complications. We reviewed literature on refeeding syndrome and the associated electrolyte abnormalities, fluid disturbances, and associated complications. In addition to assessing scientific literature, we also considered clinical experience and judgment in developing recommendations for prevention and treatment of refeeding syndrome. The most important steps are to identify patients at risk for developing refeeding syndrome, institute nutrition support cautiously, and correct and supplement electrolyte and vitamin deficiencies to avoid refeeding syndrome. We provide suggestions for the prevention of refeeding syndrome and suggestions for treatment of electrolyte disturbances and complications in patients who develop refeeding syndrome, according to evidence in the literature, the pathophysiology of refeeding syndrome, and clinical experience and judgment.

Use of Subjective Global Assessment to Identify Nutrition-Associated Complications and Death in Geriatric Long-Term Care Facility Residents

Objective: The primary objective of this study was to assess the use of Subjective Global Assessment to identify nutrition-associated complications and death in a geriatric population. A secondary objective was to evaluate the ability of Subjective Global Assessment to identify geriatric residents of long-term care facilities who were undernourished or at risk for developing undernutrition. Methods: Fifty-three consecutive residents who were ≥ 65 years of age and had been residing in a long-term care facility for < 2 weeks were enrolled in the study. The Subjective Global Assessment Classification technique was performed according to the procedure outlined by Detsky and colleagues. Residents were classified as well-nourished (A), mild/moderately undernourished (B) or severely undernourished (C). In addition, a Subjective Global Assessment Composite Score was derived. Subjective Global Assessment measures were compared with two traditional objective measurements of nutritional status: serum albumin and serum total cholesterol. Outcome measurements of nutrition-associated complications were determined over a 3-month period by recording the incidence of major infections, decubitus ulcers, nutrition-related hospital readmissions, and mortality. Results: Sixteen residents (30.2%) were categorized as Subjective Global Assessment class A, 28 residents (52.8%) were class B, and 9 residents (17%) were class C. A significant association was found between nutritional status as determined by Subjective Global Assessment Composite Score and nutrition-associated complications (p<0.05). Subjective Global Assessment Classification was related to death (p<0.05) with severely undernourished residents having the highest mortality rate. Hypoalbuminemia only demonstrated a significant relationship with nutrition-associated complications (p<0.05), whereas hypocholesterolemia was associated with death (p<0.05). Conclusions: Subjective Global Assessment of nutritional status appears to be a simple, noninvasive and cost-effective tool for assessing nutritional status of geriatric residents in long-term care facilities. This assessment tool is also beneficial for identifying patients with increased risk of nutrition-associated complications as well as death.

Practice management guidelines for nutritional support of the trauma patient.

Nutritional support is an integral, though often neglected, component of the care of the critically injured patient. Our understanding of the metabolic changes associated with starvation, stress, and sepsis has deepened over the past 20 to 30 years, and along with this has come a greater appreciation for the importance of the timing, composition, and route of administration of nutritional support to the trauma patient. Although supportive data exist for many of our current nutritional practices, the trauma surgeon cannot assume that interventions that are successful in laboratory animals or even in the critically ill nontrauma patient will produce the same results in critically ill trauma patients. Stanley J. Dudrick, MD, one of the forefathers of surgical nutrition in this country, put it this way: “. . .we do get ourselves into an awful lot of trouble and lack of consensus as a result of mixing in animal data together with normal, starved man data when we are talking about trauma, especially in burns.” For this reason, the recommendations provided in this guideline are based, when at all possible, on studies using trauma or burn patients. Nevertheless, a brief discussion of some of the basic science principles of nutritional support is provided in the following section as a backdrop for the clinical studies presented in this guideline. This practice management guideline is a compilation of six separate guidelines; each addresses a specific aspect of the nutritional support of the trauma patient. These topics are presented in the following order: A. Route of nutritional support (total parenteral nutrition vs. total enteral nutrition). B. Timing of nutritional support (early vs. late). C. Site of nutritional support (gastric vs. jejunal). D. Macronutrient formulation (how many calories and what proportion of protein, carbohydrate, and fat?). E. Monitoring of nutritional support (which tests and how often?). F. Type of nutritional support (standard vs. enhanced). Each subguideline is a separate and free-standing document, with its own recommendations, evidentiary tables, and references. Where possible, we have attempted to eliminate redundancy and ensure consistency among the guidelines. Yet, because of substantial differences in both the quantity as well as the quality of supporting scientific data for each topic, and the fact that certain clinical circumstances are not conducive to a single guideline, concise and consistent recommendations were not always possible. Even when Class I (prospective, randomized, controlled) studies were available, limited patient numbers and inconsistent definitions rendered study conclusions less authoritative that they might have otherwise been. Recognizing the need to incorporate the major recommendations from the subguidelines into a logical overall approach to the nutritional support of the trauma patient, a summary algorithm is provided at the conclusion of the guideline (Fig. 1). Because of the scope of this document, many of the recommendations from the subguidelines could not be included in the algorithm. In addition, distinguishing between the various levels of recommendations (I, II, and III) within the algorithm was not practical. Nevertheless, the algorithm provides a safe, reasonable, and literature-supported approach to nutritional support and, we hope, will provoke constructive discussion and stimulate further investigation.

Treatment of hypophosphatemia in patients receiving specialized nutrition support using a graduated dosing scheme : results from a prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVE To determine the safety and efficacy of a graduated dosing scheme of phosphorus replacement therapy in patients with hypophosphatemia receiving specialized nutrition support. DESIGN Prospective clinical trial. SETTING A 455-bed tertiary care institution, with Level I trauma designation. PATIENTS Seventy-eight adult patients, followed and co-managed by a multidisciplinary Nutrition Support Service, with a serum phosphorus concentration of < 3 mg/dL (< 0.97 mmol/L) and no evidence of renal insufficiency, calcium or parathyroid disorders, or obesity. INTERVENTIONS Patients were enrolled into one of three categories based on their serum phosphorus concentration: mild hypophosphatemia (2.3 to 3 mg/dL [0.74 to 0.97 mmol/L]), moderate hypophosphatemia (1.6 to 2.2 mg/dL [0.52 to 0.71 mmol/L]), or severe hypophosphatemia (< 1.5 mg/dL [< 0.48 mmol/L]). Each patient received one intravenous phosphorus bolus dose, based on the assigned category of hypophosphatemia, according to a graduated dosing scheme: 0.16 mM/kg (mild), 0.32 mM/kg (moderate), or 0.64 mM/kg (severe). Serum/blood concentrations of phosphorus, calcium, albumin, magnesium, urea nitrogen, and creatinine were measured for three consecutive days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Sixty-seven patients completed the protocol. There were 31 patients with mild hypophosphatemia, 22 patients with moderate hypophosphatemia, and 14 patients with severe hypophosphatemia. Serum phosphorus concentrations increased significantly (p < .001) in all groups after the phosphorus bolus: 2.6 +/- 0.6 to 3.3 +/- 0.6 mg/dL (0.84 +/- 0.19 to 1.1 +/- 0.19 mmol/L) for the mild group; 1.9 +/- 0.6 to 2.7 +/- 0.6 mg/dL (0.61 +/- 0.19 to 0.87 +/- 0.19 mmol/L) for the moderate group; 1.3 +/- 0.8 to 2.3 +/- 0.8 mg/dL (0.42 +/- 0.26 to 0.74 +/- 0.26 mmol/L) for the severe group. There were no clinically significant changes in serum/blood calcium, albumin, urea nitrogen, or creatinine concentrations and no adverse reactions to the phosphorus regimens throughout the 3-day study period. CONCLUSION The graduated dosing scheme of phosphorus replacement therapy is both safe and efficacious in patients receiving specialized nutrition support.

Early Nutrition Support Modifies Immune Function in Patients Sustaining Severe Head Injury

BACKGROUND Immunosuppression after severe head injury has been characterized by a depressed CD4 (T-helper/inducer)-CD8 (T-suppressor/cytotoxic) ratio and decreased T-lymphocyte responsiveness. Some investigators propose that this immunocompromized state is the result of an injury-associated hypermetabolic response and inadequate nutrient delivery during the immediate postinjury recovery phase. Previous observations from our institution demonstrated a preserved CD4-CD8 ratio in severe closed-head injury (CHI) patients receiving early parenteral nutrition (PN). It was unclear whether early PN or other aspects of patient care eliminated the characteristic depression in cellular immunity. The purpose of this study was to further investigate the effect of early PN on the immune function of CHI patients. METHODS Nine patients sustaining severe CHI were prospectively randomized to either early PN (n = 4) at day 1 or delayed PN (n = 5) at day 5. Total nutrient administration was delivered at 2 g of protein/kg per day and 40 nonprotein kcal/kg per day for at least the first 14 days of hospitalization. Analysis for T-lymphocyte expression of CD4 and CD8 cell surface antigens and interleukin-6 was performed on days 1, 3, 7, and 14 of hospitalization. T-lymphocyte activation in response to stimulation by concanavalin A (Con A), phytohemagglutinin (PHA), and pokeweed mitogens (PWM) was also assessed on these days. RESULTS Significant increases in total CD4 cell counts (2048 +/- 194 to 2809 +/- 129 vs 1728 +/- 347 to 1825 +/- 563, p < .05) and CD4% (42.6 +/- 4.4% to 56.2 +/- 2.6% vs 36.6 +/- 6.6% to 36.6 +/- 11.3%, p < .05) were observed at day 14 in patients receiving early vs delayed PN. An improved lymphocyte response from baseline to day 14 after Con A stimulation was demonstrated in the early PN group (3850 +/- 1596 to 16144 +/- 5024 cpm, p < .05). A significant rise in the CD4-CD8 ratio over baseline to day 14 was also noted in the early PN group (1.43 +/- 0.17 to 2.38 +/- 0.54, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS The early aggressive nutrition support of CHI patients appears to modify immunologic function by increasing CD4 cells, CD4-CD8 ratios, and T-lymphocyte responsiveness to Con A.

A.S.P.E.N. Parenteral Nutrition Safety Consensus Recommendations

Parenteral nutrition (PN) serves as an important therapeutic modality that is used in adults, children, and infants for a variety of indications. The appropriate use of this complex therapy aims to maximize clinical benefit while minimizing the potential risks for adverse events. Complications can occur as a result of the therapy and as the result of the PN process. These consensus recommendations are based on practices that are generally accepted to minimize errors with PN therapy, categorized in the areas of PN prescribing, order review and verification, compounding, and administration. These recommendations should be used in conjunction with other A.S.P.E.N. publications, and researchers should consider studying the questions brought forth in this document.

Frequency and Severity of Harm of Medication Errors Related to the Parenteral Nutrition Process in a Large University Teaching Hospital

Study Objective. To determine the frequency of medication errors, as well as the severity of harm resulting from these errors, related to the prescription, transcription, preparation, and administration of parenteral nutrition formulations.

Controversy of immunonutrition for surgical critical-illness patients.

Specific nutrients such as arginine, glutamine, dietary nucleotides, and omega-3 fatty acids have been shown to influence infectious morbidity, antibiotic use, and hospital length of stay. The combination of these nutrients into one enteral formulation has become known as immune-enhancing diets. Consensus guidelines developed by a number of clinical investigators and published in 2001 concluded that immune-enhancing diets were beneficial in moderate to severely malnourished patients undergoing elective gastrointestinal surgery and patients sustaining severe blunt and penetrating torso trauma. The purpose of this article is to review data published between February 1, 2001, and January 31, 2003, to determine whether new studies substantiated or refuted the current recommendations for the use of immune-enhancing diets in surgical, critically injured, and critically ill patients. Results confirmed the benefits of preoperative administration of immune-enhancing diets in surgical patients but also demonstrated that postoperative administration offered no advantages. Decreased infectious complications were also observed in critically ill patients receiving immune-enhancing diets. Accumulating evidence supports the use of immune-enhancing diets in these specific patient populations.

Comparison of continuous vs intermittent nasogastric enteral feeding in trauma patients: perceptions and practice.

Enteral nutrition support (ENS) may be administered by continuous administration or by intermittent bolus, but few studies have compared the advantages and limitations associated with these methods in the trauma patient population. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to evaluate the impact of continuous vs intermittent nasogastric enteral feeding on gastrointestinal tolerance, pulmonary aspiration, and nutritional indices. A survey of medical and surgical intensive care unit nursing staff was performed to assess perceptions and attitudes toward these 2 delivery methods. Eighteen trauma patients [Injury Severity Score (ISS) > or = 20] were enrolled in the study; 9 received continuous ENS (CENS) and 9 received intermittent bolus ENS (IENS). Interruption of ENS delivery occurred in more IENS than CENS patients due to elevated residuals and emesis. Diarrhea occurred in more patients (5/9 vs 2/9) and for a longer duration (14/65 vs 6/49 ENS days) in the IENS group compared with the CENS group. Aspiration was detected in 1 IENS patient. Method of nutrient delivery did not seem to influence urine urea nitrogen (UUN) measurements or prealbumin concentrations. Nurses surveyed in the study (n = 25) preferred CENS (84%) compared with IENS (12%). Data from this study suggest that CENS through a nasoenteric feeding tube may facilitate nutrient intake with less gastrointestinal complications in severely injured trauma patients compared with IENS. In addition, the majority of nurses surveyed preferred the continuous method for nutrient delivery.