Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition / Vol. 33, No. 3, May/June 2009
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition / Vol. 33, No. 3, May/June 2009
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition / Vol. 33, No. 3, May/June 2009
Grade of recommendation
A Supported by at least two level I investigations
B Supported by one level I investigation
C Supported by level II investigations only
D Supported by at least two level III investigations
E Supported by level IV or level V evidence
Level of evidence
I Large, randomized trials with clear-cut results; low risk of false-positive
(alpha) error or false-negative (beta) error
II Small, randomized trials with uncertain results; moderate to high risk of
false-positive (alpha) and/or false-negative (beta) error
III Nonrandomized, contemporaneous controls
IV Nonrandomized, historical controls
V Case series, uncontrolled studies, and expert opinion
Note:
Large studies warranting level I evidence were defined as those with ≥100 patients
or those which fulfilled end point criteria predetermined by power analysis
Introduction
Traditionally, nutrition goal is to SUPPORT
To preserve lean body mass
To maintain immune function
To avert metabolic complications
1. Lewis SJ. Br Med J. 2001;323:1-5. 2.McClave SA.JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2006;30:143-156.
A3. Initiation of Enteral Feeding
EN is the preferred route of feeding over PN
for the critically ill patient who requires
nutrition support therapy (Grade: B)
Rationale1-7
Reduce
infectious morbidity
cost of nutrition
1.Heyland DK. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2003;27:355-373. 2.Marik PE. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:2264-2270.
A5. Initiation of Enteral Feeding
In hemodynamic compromise, EN is withheld
until the patient is fully resuscitated and/or
stable. (Grade: E)
Rationale1-4
GI dysmotility, sepsis, and hypotension
Subclinical ischemia/reperfusion injury
EN is withheld when MAP <60 mm Hg, esp with
escalating catecholamine
caution to patients on stable low doses of pressor
agents
1.McClave SA. Nut Clin Pract. 2003;18:279-284. 3.Zaloga GP. Nutr Clin Pract. 2003;18:285-293.
2.Melis M. Arch Surg. 2006;141:701-704. 4.Kozar RA. J Surg Res. 2002;104:70-75.
A6. Initiation of Enteral Feeding
Neither bowel sounds nor passage of
flatus/stool is required for the initiation of EN.
(Grade: B)
Rationale.1-10
GI dysfunction => 30%-70%
Mucosal barrier disruption, altered motility and atrophy
of the mucosa, and reduced mass of GALT
BS are indicative of contractility -> do not necessarily
relate to mucosal integrity, barrier function, or
absorptive capacity.
1.Moore EE. J Trauma. 1986;26:874-881.
2.Chiarelli A. Am J Clin Nutr. 1990;51:1035-1039. 6.Minard G.J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2000;24:145-149.
3.Eyer SD. J Trauma. 1993;34:639-643. 7.Kompan L.Clin Nutr. 2004;23:527-532.
4.Chuntrasakul C. J Med Assoc Thai. 8.Malhotra A. J Postgrad Med. 2004;50:102-106.
1996;79:21-26. 9.Peck MD. J Trauma. 2004;57:1143-1149.
5.Singh G.J Am Coll Surg. 1998;187:142-146. 10.Dvorak MF. Spine. 2004;29:E175-E180.
A7. Initiation of Enteral Feeding
Gastric or small bowel feeding is acceptable.
Fed via an enteral tube in the small bowel if at
high risk for aspiration or after showing
intolerance to gastric feeding. (Grade: C)
(Grade: E)
1. Van den Berghe G. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1359-1367. 2.Van den Berghe G. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:44946
B4. When Indicated, Maximize Efficacy of
Parenteral Nutrition
A large level I multicenter European study
suggested
Control of 8 - 10 mmol/L might avoid
hypoglycemia and reduce the mortality
associated with hypoglycemia compared to
tighter control.2
With a paucity of data, the Guidelines Committee
felt that controlling glucose in the range of 6-
8mmol/L was most appropriate at this time.
B5. When Indicated, Maximize Efficacy of
Parenteral Nutrition
Repeated efforts should be made to initiate EN
while on PN.
As enteral tolerance improves, the amount of PN
is reduced & terminated if ≥60% of target energy
requirements are delivered by EN. (Grade: E)
Rationale.
EN has marked benefits for the critically ill patient
To avoid overfeeding, the amount of calories delivered via
parenteral route should be reduce appropriately to the
increase in the amount of calories delivered enterally.
C1. Dosing of Enteral Feeding
The target goal of EN
defined by energy requirements
should be determined at the time of initiation of
nutrition support therapy1-4. (Grade: C)
Energy requirements (Grade: E)
Calculated
Predictive equations (Harris-Benedict, Scholfield,
Ireton-Jones)
simplistic formulas (25-30 kcal/kg/d)
used with caution-> less accurate esp obese
Measured
indirect calorimetry
Rationale
Impact is dose-dependent
“Trickle” or trophic feeds (10-30 mL/h)
Prevent mucosal atrophy
Insufficient to achieve the desired endpoint from EN
therapy.
1.Taylor SJ. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:2525-2531 2.Ziegler TR. Arch Surg. 1988;123:1313-1319.
C3 Dosing of Enteral Feeding
If unable to meet 100% of target goal calories
after 7-10 days by EN alone, consider initiating
supplemental PN. (Grade: E)
Initiating supplemental PN prior to 7-10 day
in patients on EN does not improve outcome
and may be detrimental to the patient. (Grade:
C)
Rationale.
After 7-10 days
calories and protein requirement is increased
1Choban PS Nutr Clin Pract. 2005;20:480-487. 2Elamin EM. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2005;11:300-303.
D1 Monitoring Tolerance and Adequacy of
Enteral Nutrition
Bowel motility (resolution of clinical ileus) is
not required in order to initiate EN. (Grade: E)
Rationale.
EN
Safe prior to the emergence of overt evidence of enteric
function (BS, passing flatus and stool)
EN promotes gut motility.
Haemodynamically stable -> appropriate to feed
through mild to moderate ileus.1
1
Pinilla JC,JPEN J. 2001;25:81-86.
2
Montejo JC.Intensive Care Med. 2009.
5
Landzinski J. JPEN J. 2008; 32:45-50.
3
Taylor SJ. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:2525-2531.
6
Cohen J.Clin Nutr. 2000;19:233-236.
7
D2 Monitoring Tolerance and Adequacy of
Enteral Nutrition
4 level II studies1,3-4,7
Raising GRV cutoff value from 50-150 mL to 250-500 mL
No
increase risk for regurgitation, aspiration or
pneumonia.
Decreasing GRV cutoff value
Does not protect from these complications,
Leads to inappropriate cessation
8
McClave SA. JPEN J. 2002;26(6 Suppl):S80-S85.
D3 Monitoring Tolerance and Adequacy of
Enteral Nutrition
Feeding protocols increases the percentage of
goal calories provided and should be
implemented. (Grade: C)
Rationale.
Use of ICU or nurse-driven protocols
Define goal infusion rate
designate more rapid startups
Specific orders for handling GRV, frequency of
flushes, and conditions under which feeding
may be adjusted or stopped.1-6
1Taylor SJ. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:2525-2531. 4Martin CM. CMAJ.2004;170:197-204
2Kozar RA. J Surg Res. 2002;104:70-75 5Adam S.Intensive Care Med. 1997;23:261-266.
D4 Monitoring Tolerance and Adequacy of
Enteral Nutrition
Patients on EN should be assessed for risk of
aspiration. (Grade: E)
Steps to reduce risk of aspiration should be
employed. (Grade: E)
High-risk patients & those intolerant to gastric feeding,
delivery should be continuous infusion. (Grade: D)
Prokinetic drugs (metoclopramide and erythromycin)
or narcotic antagonists (naloxone ) should be initiated
where clinically feasible. (Grade: C)
Diverting the level of feeding by post-pyloric tube
placement should be considered. (Grade: C)
D4 Monitoring Tolerance and Adequacy of Enteral
Nutrition
Rationale.
Patients at increased risk for aspiration1
use of a nasoenteric tube
Patient position
poor oral health
use of bolus intermittent feedings.
Pneumonia and bacterial colonization of the
upper respiratory tree
aspiration of contaminated oropharyngeal secretions >>
aspiration of contaminated gastric contents.2-4
1
McClave . JPEN J 2002;26(6 Suppl):S80-S85 Bonten MJ. Chest.1994;105:878-884.
3
2
Torres A.Am Rev Respir Dis. 1993;148:352-357. Pingleton SK. Am J Med. 1986;80:827-832
4
D5 Monitoring Tolerance and Adequacy of
Enteral Nutrition
Blue food coloring and glucose oxidase strips, as
markers for aspiration, should not be used.
(Grade: E)
Rationale.
Traditional monitors for aspiration are ineffective.
Blue food coloring was associated with mitochondrial
toxicity and patient death.1
Glucose oxidase strips (glucose content in tracheal
secretions is solely related to aspiration of glucose-
containing formulation) has been shown to be invalid with
poor sensitivity/specificity.2
1Bower RH. Crit Care Med.1995;23:436-449. 3Bertolini G. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:834-840
2Dent DL. Crit Care Med. 2003;30:A17. 4Luiking YC. e-SPEN. 2006;1:14-15.
E1. Selection of Appropriate Enteral Formulation
Glutamine
Rationale.
The benefit is a dose-dependent effect1-2
Rationale.
Current large prospective trials are not available to
make this a strong recommendation.1
Rationale.
Energy needs are variable
Difficult to predict by simple equations
Best determined by indirect calorimetry.1-9
Rationale.
Protein should not be restricted as a management
strategy to reduce risk of developing hepatic
encephalopathy1-2
Protein requirements is the same as for the general
ICU patient.
1.Plauth M. Clin Nutr. 2006;25:285-294 2.Florez DA. Semin Gastrointest Dis. 2002;13:169-178.
J3. Hepatic Failure
Use standard enteral formulations in
acute/chronic liver disease.
Branched chain amino acid formulations (BCAA)
is reserved for encephalopathic patient refractory
to standard treatment (antibiotics, lactulose).
(Grade: C)
Rationale.
No evidence to suggest that a BCAA formulation improves
outcomes compared to standard formulations.
In hepatic encephalopathy refractory to usual therapy,
BCAA formulations may improve coma grade compared to
standard formulations.1-6
1.Plauth M,.lin Nutr. 2006;25:285-294. 4.Marchesini G. Gastroenterology. 2003;124:1792-1801.
2.Horst D.Hepatology. 1984;4:279-287. 5.Muto Y. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005;3:705-713.
6.Sato S. Hepatol Res.2005;31:232-240.
K1. Acute Pancreatitis
Rationale.
2 level II trials
no significant differences between the 2 levels of EN
infusion within the GI tract. 1-2