Explore the vast range of titles available.

Early parenteral nutrition to supplement insufficient enteral feeding during intensive care (early PN) delays recovery as compared with withholding parenteral nutrition for 1 week (late PN). To assess whether deleterious effects of early PN relate to severity of illness or to the dose or type of macronutrients. Secondary analyses of a randomized controlled trial (EPaNIC; n = 4,640) performed in seven intensive care units from three departments in two Belgian hospitals. In part 1, all patients were included to assess the effect of the randomized allocation to early PN or late PN in subgroups of patients with increasing-on-admission severity of illness. In part 2, observationally, the association of the amount and type of macronutrients with recovery was documented in those patient cohorts still present in intensive care on Days 3, 5, 7, 10, and 14. The primary end point was time to live discharge from the intensive care unit. For part 1, a secondary end point, acquisition of new infections, was also analyzed. All statistical analyses were performed by univariable and adjusted multivariable methods. In none of the subgroups defined by type or severity of illness was a beneficial effect of early PN observed. The lowest dose of macronutrients was associated with the fastest recovery and any higher dose, administered parenterally or enterally, was associated with progressively more delayed recovery. The amount of proteins/amino acids rather than of glucose appeared to explain delayed recovery with early feeding. Early combined parenteral/enteral nutrition delayed recovery irrespective of severity of critical illness. No dose or type of macronutrient was found to be associated with improved outcome. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00512122).

This trial involving critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation compared the effects of energy-dense and routine enteral nutrition. The use of an energy-dense formulation did not increase the rate of survival at 90 days.

Increased protein provision might ameliorate muscle wasting and improve long-term outcomes in critically ill patients. The aim of the PRECISe trial was to assess whether higher enteral protein provision (ie, 2·0 g/kg per day) would improve health-related quality of life and functional outcomes in critically ill patients who were mechanically ventilated compared with standard enteral protein provision (ie, 1·3 g/kg per day). The PRECISe trial was an investigator-initiated, double-blinded, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in five Dutch hospitals and five Belgian hospitals. Inclusion criteria were initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and an expected duration of invasive ventilation of 3 days or longer. Exclusion criteria were contraindications for enteral nutrition, moribund condition, BMI less than 18 kg/m2, kidney failure with a no dialysis code, or hepatic encephalopathy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four randomisation labels, corresponding with two study groups (ie, standard or high protein; two labels per group) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio through an interactive web-response system. Randomisation was done via random permuted-block randomisation in varying block sizes of eight and 12, stratified by centre. Participants, care providers, investigators, outcome assessors, data analysts, and the independent data safety monitoring board were all blinded to group allocation. Patients received isocaloric enteral feeds that contained 1·3 kcal/mL and 0·06 g of protein/mL (ie, standard protein) or 1·3 kcal/mL and 0·10 g of protein/mL (ie, high protein). The study-nutrition intervention was limited to the time period during the patient's ICU stay in which they required enteral feeding, with a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) health utility score at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days after randomisation, adjusted for baseline EQ-5D-5L health utility score. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04633421) and is closed to new participants. Between Nov 19, 2020, and April 14, 2023, 935 patients were randomly assigned. 335 (35·8%) of 935 patients were female and 600 (64·2%) were male. 465 (49·7%) of 935 were assigned to the standard protein group and 470 (50·3%) were assigned to the high protein group. 430 (92·5%) of 465 patients in the standard protein group and 419 (89·1%) of 470 patients in the high protein group were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary outcome, EQ-5D-5L health utility score during 180 days after randomisation (assessed at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days), was lower in patients allocated to the high protein group than in those allocated to the standard protein group, with a mean difference of –0·05 (95% CI –0·10 to –0·01; p=0·031). Regarding safety outcomes, the probability of mortality during the entire follow-up was 0·38 (SE 0·02) in the standard protein group and 0·42 (0·02) in the high protein group (hazard ratio 1·14, 95% CI 0·92 to 1·40; p=0·22). There was a higher incidence of symptoms of gastrointestinal intolerance in patients in the high protein group (odds ratio 1·76, 95% CI 1·06 to 2·92; p=0·030). Incidence of other adverse events did not differ between groups. High enteral protein provision compared with standard enteral protein provision resulted in worse health-related quality of life in critically ill patients and did not improve functional outcomes during 180 days after ICU admission. Netherlands Organisation for Healthcare Research and Development and Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre.

Purpose of Review Enteral nutrition (EN) therapy can provide vital nutrition support for patients with various medical conditions as long as it is indicated and supported by ethical reasoning. This review seeks to offer a detailed account of the history of EN development, highlighting key milestones and recent advances in the field. Additionally, it covers common complications associated with EN and their management. Recent Findings After years of research and development, we have reached newer generations of enteral feeding formulations, more options for enteral tubes and connectors, and a better understanding of EN therapy challenges. Given the availability of many different formulas, selecting a feeding formula with the best evidence for specific indications for enteral feeding is recommended. Initiation of enteral feeding with standard polymeric formula remains the standard of care. Transition to small-bore connectors remains suboptimal. Summary Evidence-based practices should be followed to recognize and reduce possible enteral feeding complications early.

In this randomized trial involving very preterm or very-low-birth-weight infants, there was no significant difference in survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months with a strategy of advancing milk feeding volumes in daily increments of 30 ml per kilogram of body weight as compared with 18 ml per kilogram.

Glutamine is thought to have beneficial effects on the metabolic and stress response to severe injury. Clinical trials involving patients with burns and other critically ill patients have shown conflicting results regarding the benefits and risks of glutamine supplementation. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with deep second- or third-degree burns (affecting ≥10% to ≥20% of total body-surface area, depending on age) within 72 hours after hospital admission to receive 0.5 g per kilogram of body weight per day of enterally delivered glutamine or placebo. Trial agents were given every 4 hours through a feeding tube or three or four times a day by mouth until 7 days after the last skin grafting procedure, discharge from the acute care unit, or 3 months after admission, whichever came first. The primary outcome was the time to discharge alive from the hospital, with data censored at 90 days. We calculated subdistribution hazard ratios for discharge alive, which took into account death as a competing risk. A total of 1209 patients with severe burns (mean burn size, 33% of total body-surface area) underwent randomization, and 1200 were included in the analysis (596 patients in the glutamine group and 604 in the placebo group). The median time to discharge alive from the hospital was 40 days (interquartile range, 24 to 87) in the glutamine group and 38 days (interquartile range, 22 to 75) in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio for discharge alive, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.04; P = 0.17). Mortality at 6 months was 17.2% in the glutamine group and 16.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for death, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.41). No substantial between-group differences in serious adverse events were observed. In patients with severe burns, supplemental glutamine did not reduce the time to discharge alive from the hospital. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; RE-ENERGIZE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00985205.).

Purpose Enteral feeding intolerance (EFI) is a frequent problem in the intensive care unit (ICU), but current prokinetic agents have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of ulimorelin, a ghrelin agonist, with metoclopramide in the treatment of EFI. Methods One hundred twenty ICU patients were randomized 1:1 to ulimorelin or metoclopramide for 5 days. EFI was diagnosed by a gastric residual volume (GRV) ≥ 500 ml. A volume-based feeding protocol was employed, and enteral formulas were standardized. The primary end point was the percentage daily protein prescription (%DPP) received by patients over 5 days of treatment. Secondary end points included feeding success, defined as 80% DPP; gastric emptying, assessed by paracetamol absorption; incidences of recurrent intolerance (GRV ≥ 500 ml); vomiting or regurgitation; aspiration, defined by positive tracheal aspirates for pepsin; and pulmonary infection. Results One hundred twenty patients were randomized and received the study drug (ulimorelin 62, metoclopramide 58). Mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21.6 and 8.6, and 63.3% of patients had medical reasons for ICU admission. Ulimorelin and metoclopramide resulted in comparable %DPPs over 5 days of treatment (median [Q1, Q3]: 82.9% [38.4%, 100.2%] and 82.3% [65.6%, 100.2%], respectively, p  = 0.49). Five-day rates of feeding success were 67.7% and 70.6% when terminations unrelated to feeding were excluded, and there were no differences in any secondary outcomes or adverse events between the two groups. Conclusions Both prokinetic agents achieved similar rates of feeding success, and no safety differences between the two treatment groups were observed.

Abstract Rationale The optimal nutritional strategy for critically ill adults at high nutritional risk is unclear. Objectives To examine the effect of permissive underfeeding with full protein intake compared with standard feeding on 90-day mortality in patients with different baseline nutritional risk. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding versus Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial. Measurements and Main Results Nutritional risk was categorized by the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, with high nutritional risk defined as a score of 5–9 and low nutritional risk as a score of 0–4. Additional analyses were performed by categorizing patients by body mass index, prealbumin, transferrin, phosphate, urinary urea nitrogen, and nitrogen balance. Based on the Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, 378 of 894 (42.3%) patients were categorized as high nutritional risk and 516 of 894 (57.7%) as low nutritional risk. There was no association between feeding strategy and mortality in the two categories; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56–1.27) for high nutritional risk and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.64–1.61) for low nutritional risk (interaction P = 0.53). Findings were similar in analyses using other definitions, with the exception of prealbumin. The association of permissive underfeeding versus standard feeding and 90-day mortality differed when patients were categorized by baseline prealbumin level (≤0.10 g/L: aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31–1.05]; >0.10 and ≤0.15 g/L: aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.42–1.48]; >0.15 g/L: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.80, 3.01]; interaction P = 0.009). Conclusions Among patients with high and low nutritional risk, permissive underfeeding with full protein intake was associated with similar outcomes as standard feeding.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is a fatal neurodegenerative disease with few therapeutic options. Mild obesity is associated with greater survival in patients with the disease, and calorie-dense diets increased survival in a mouse model. We aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of two hypercaloric diets in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis receiving enteral nutrition. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 2 clinical trial, we enrolled adults with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from participating centres in the USA. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with no history of diabetes or liver or cardiovascular disease, and who were already receiving percutaneous enteral nutrition. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) using a computer-generated list of random numbers to one of three dietary interventions: replacement calories using an isocaloric tube-fed diet (control), a high-carbohydrate hypercaloric tube-fed diet (HC/HC), or a high-fat hypercaloric tube-fed diet (HF/HC). Participants received the intervention diets for 4 months and were followed up for 5 months. The primary outcomes were safety and tolerability, analysed in all patients who began their study diet. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00983983. Between Dec 14, 2009, and Nov 2, 2012, we enrolled 24 participants, of whom 20 started their study diet (six in the control group, eight in the HC/HC group, and six in the HF/HC group). One patient in the control group, one in the HC/HC group, and two in the HF/HC group withdrew consent before receiving the intervention. Participants who received the HC/HC diet had a smaller total number of adverse events than did those in the other groups (23 in the HC/HC group vs 42 in the control group vs 48 in the HF/HC group; overall, p=0·06; HC/HC vs control, p=0·06) and significantly fewer serious adverse events than did those on the control diet (none vs nine; p=0·0005). Fewer patients in the HC/HC group discontinued their study diet due to adverse events (none [0%] of eight in the HC/HC group vs three [50%] of six in the control group). During the 5 month follow-up, no deaths occurred in the nine patients assigned to the HC/HC diet compared with three deaths (43%) in the seven patients assigned to the control diet (log-rank p=0·03). Adverse events, tolerability, deaths, and disease progression did not differ significantly between the HF/HC group and the control group. Our results provide preliminary evidence that hypercaloric enteral nutrition is safe and tolerable in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and support the study of nutritional interventions in larger randomised controlled trials at earlier stages of the disease. Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, and Harvard NeuroDiscovery Center.

Background Nutrition interventions commenced in ICU and continued through to hospital discharge have not been definitively tested in critical care to date. To commence a program of research, we aimed to determine if a tailored nutrition intervention delivered for the duration of hospitalisation delivers more energy than usual care to patients initially admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Methods A multicentre, unblinded, parallel-group, phase II trial was conducted in twenty-two hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Adult patients, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) for 72–120 h within ICU, and receiving < 80% estimated energy requirements from enteral nutrition (EN) were included. The intervention (tailored nutrition) commenced in ICU and included EN and supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN), and EN, PN, and/or oral nutrition after liberation from MV, and was continued until hospital discharge or study day 28. The primary outcome was daily energy delivery from nutrition (kcal). Secondary outcomes included duration of hospital stay, ventilator free days at day 28 and total blood stream infection rate. Main results The modified intention to treat analysis included 237 patients (n = 119 intervention and n = 118 usual care). Baseline characteristics were balanced; the median [interquartile range] intervention period was 19 [14–35] and 19 [13–32] days in the tailored nutrition and usual care groups respectively. Energy delivery was 1796 ± 31 kcal/day (tailored nutrition) versus 1482 ± 32 kcal/day (usual care)—adjusted mean difference 271 kcal/day, 95% CI 189–354 kcal. No differences were observed in any secondary outcomes. Conclusions A tailored nutrition intervention commenced in the ICU and continued until hospital discharge achieved a significant increase in energy delivery over the duration of hospitalisation for patients initially admitted to the ICU. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03292237 . First registered 25th September 2017. Last updated 10th Feb 2023.