As the significance of nutrition in intensive care unit grows, large prospective randomized controlled trials on nutrition therapy have been performed and recently published. Each society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition designated recommendations for clinical practice based on the best available evidence and the consensus of experts. The European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ESPEN) has released a new guideline that has been updated from the previous ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition in adult critically ill patients published in 2006 and 2009, respectively. This study examined the latest trends of nutrition guidelines, and especially those of the ESPEN 2018, for intensive care units as compared to guidelines of other societies and older previous guidelines.
Critically ill and injured patients admitted in the intensive care unit have a range of diseases with various severities. Their conditions should be assessed and the patients should receive specialized nutrition therapy depending on their condition. Like general intensive care, nutrition therapy is upgraded every few years with revised information to provide more idealized nutrition support. The main guidelines in this review are from the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN). Their previous 2009 guidelines were revised and published in 2016. This review summarizes the 2016 SCCM/ASPEN guidelines focusing on the changes from the previous 2009 guidelines.
Careful nutritional strategy is an essential component in the management of critically ill patients. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines can be an effective solution to improving the process and structure of nutritional strategy for critically ill patients. The 2015 Canadian clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) summarized the evidence from approximately 354 randomized controlled trials in the area of critical care nutrition since 1980. The Canadian CPGs were first developed in 2003 and have been updated every 2 years. It is important for the acquisition of new evidence-based knowledge. This paper includes a brief summary on changes in 2015 CPGs compared with 2013 CPGs.
Development of a standardized guideline and assessment tool is necessary. Therefore, the aim is to investigate the current state of enteral feeding management and to develop a basis for a standardized guideline.
From July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, this study was conducted retrospectively for 100 patients who had enteral feeding more than once only in the Intensive Care Unit, after General Surgery at Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. The analysis was based on the following factors; age, diagnosis, name of the operation, period of start and the end of enteral feeding, method of injection, flushing method, residual volumes of the stomach, location and the size of the tube, medication through tubing, and complications related to enteral feeding.
The mean age of the patients was 60.5, 65 men and 35 women. There were 30 malignant tumors of the hepatobiliary system and pancreas, 8 gastric and duodenal cancer, 4 colon and rectal cancer, 11 peritonitis, hemoperitoneum, and bowel obstruction, and 47 others. The average period of performing enteral feeding was 11.7 days and the locations of enteral feeding tube were stomach 56%, jejunum 39%, duodenum 3%, and undescribed 2%. The methods of enteral feeding were as follows; continuous feeding 19%, cyclic feeding 75%, intermittent and bolus feeding 3%, respectively. Only 1% of patients were on flushing and 16% on stomach residual. The most common complication of enteral feeding was clogging of the tube (5%).
Due to the lack of detailed charting related to enteral feeding, we were unable to analyze the statistics on the relevance of complication which was the primary endpoint. As a result, development of a standardized protocol on charting enteral feeding is suggested for optimal enteral nutritional support.