0
selected
-
1.
Safety and Efficacy of Early High Parenteral Lipid Supplementation in Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Kim, K, Kim, NJ, Kim, SY
Nutrients. 2021;(5)
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize the effects of early initiation and achievement of a high dose of parenteral lipids (≥1.5 g/kg/day reached within the first 24 h of birth) on growth and adverse outcomes in preterm infants. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were utilized to search for publications for this meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials were eligible if data on growth or clinical outcome was available. The search returned nine studies. The mean proportion of postnatal weight loss (%) was lower (mean difference [MD]: -2.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.69, -1.78), and the mean head circumference near the term equivalent age (cm) was higher in the early high lipid treatment group (MD: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.09). There was a favorable association of early high lipid administration with the incidence of extrauterine growth restriction (relative risk [RR]: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.48). Generally, there were no differences in morbidities or adverse outcomes with early high lipid administration. Early initiation of parenteral lipids and high dose achieved within the first 24 h of life appear to be safe and endurable and offer benefits in terms of growth.
-
2.
Early enteral nutrition (within 48 hours) versus delayed enteral nutrition (after 48 hours) with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults.
Fuentes Padilla, P, Martínez, G, Vernooij, RW, Urrútia, G, Roqué I Figuls, M, Bonfill Cosp, X
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2019;(10)
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Early enteral nutrition support (within 48 hours of admission or injury) is frequently recommended for the management of patients in intensive care units (ICU). Early enteral nutrition is recommended in many clinical practice guidelines, although there appears to be a lack of evidence for its use and benefit. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early enteral nutrition (initiated within 48 hours of initial injury or ICU admission) versus delayed enteral nutrition (initiated later than 48 hours after initial injury or ICU admission), with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition, in critically ill adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL (2019, Issue 4), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to April 2019), Embase Ovid SP (1974 to April 2019), CINAHL EBSCO (1982 to April 2019), and ISI Web of Science (1945 to April 2019). We also searched Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP), trial registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry), and scientific conference reports, including the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. We applied no restrictions by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared early versus delayed enteral nutrition, with or without supplemental parenteral nutrition, in adults who were in the ICU for longer than 72 hours. This included individuals admitted for medical, surgical, and trauma diagnoses, and who required any type of enteral nutrition. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors extracted study data and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, and as mean differences (MD) for continuous data, both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included seven RCTs with a total of 345 participants. Outcome data were limited, and we judged many trials to have an unclear risk of bias in several domains. Early versus delayed enteral nutrition Six trials (318 participants) assessed early versus delayed enteral nutrition in general, medical, and trauma ICUs in the USA, Australia, Greece, India, and Russia. Primary outcomes Five studies (259 participants) measured mortality. It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects the risk of mortality within 30 days (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.38; 1 study, 38 participants; very low-quality evidence). Four studies (221 participants) reported mortality without describing the timeframe; we did not pool these results. None of the studies reported a clear difference in mortality between groups. Three studies (156 participants) reported infectious complications. We were unable to pool the results due to unreported data and substantial clinical heterogeneity. The results were inconsistent across studies. One trial measured feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications; it is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects this outcome (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.01; 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Secondary outcomes One trial assessed hospital length of stay and reported a longer stay in the early enteral group (median 15 days (interquartile range (IQR) 9.5 to 20) versus 12 days (IQR 7.5 to15); P = 0.05; 59 participants; very low-quality evidence). Three studies (125 participants) reported the duration of mechanical ventilation. We did not pool the results due to clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The results were inconsistent across studies. It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition affects the risk of pneumonia (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.06; 4 studies, 192 participants; very low-quality evidence). Early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition versus delayed enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition We identified one trial in a burn ICU in the USA (27 participants). Primary outcomes It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition affects the risk of mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.18; very low-quality evidence), or infectious complications (MD 0.00, 95% CI -1.94 to 1.94; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available for feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications. Secondary outcomes It is uncertain whether early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 9.00, 95% CI -10.99 to 28.99; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available for hospital length of stay or pneumonia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether early enteral nutrition, compared with delayed enteral nutrition, affects the risk of mortality within 30 days, feed intolerance or gastrointestinal complications, or pneumonia. Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain if early enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition compared with delayed enteral nutrition with supplemental parenteral nutrition reduces mortality, infectious complications, or duration of mechanical ventilation. There is currently insufficient evidence; there is a need for large, multicentred studies with rigorous methodology, which measure important clinical outcomes.
-
3.
The effect of enteral versus parenteral nutrition for critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zhang, G, Zhang, K, Cui, W, Hong, Y, Zhang, Z
Journal of clinical anesthesia. 2018;:62-92
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVE To analyze the effect of enteral nutrition compared with parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING Intensive care unit. PATIENTS 23 trials containing 6478 patients met our inclusion criteria. INTERVENTION A systematical literature search was conducted to identify eligible trials in electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, EBSCO and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was mortality, the secondary outcomes were gastrointestinal complications, bloodstream infections, organ failures, length of stay in ICU and hospital. We performed a predefined subgroup analyses to explore the treatment effect by mean age, publication date and disease types. MAIN RESULTS The result showed no significant effect on overall mortality rate (OR 0.98, 95%CI 0.81 to 1.18, P = 0.83, I2 = 19%) and organ failure rate (OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.75 to 1.01, P = 0.06, I2 = 16%). The use of EN had more beneficial effects with fewer bloodstream infections when compared to PN (OR 0.59, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.82, P = 0.001, I2 = 27%) and this was more noteworthy in the subgroup analysis for critical surgical patients (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.59, P < 0.0001, I2 = 0%). EN was associated with reduction in hospital LOS (MD -0.90, 95%CI -1.63 to -0.17, P = 0.21, I2 = 0%) but had an increase incidence of gastrointestinal complications (OR 2.00, 95%CI 1.76 to 2.27, P < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSION For critically ill patients, the two routes of nutrition support had no different effect on mortality rate. The use of EN could decrease the incidence of bloodstream infections and reduce hospital LOS but was associated with increased risk of gastrointestinal complications.
-
4.
Enteral versus parenteral nutrition and enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit.
Lewis, SR, Schofield-Robinson, OJ, Alderson, P, Smith, AF
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2018;(6):CD012276
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Critically ill people are at increased risk of malnutrition. Acute and chronic illness, trauma and inflammation induce stress-related catabolism, and drug-induced adverse effects may reduce appetite or increase nausea and vomiting. In addition, patient management in the intensive care unit (ICU) may also interrupt feeding routines. Methods to deliver nutritional requirements include provision of enteral nutrition (EN), or parenteral nutrition (PN), or a combination of both (EN and PN). However, each method is problematic. This review aimed to determine the route of delivery that optimizes uptake of nutrition. OBJECTIVES To compare the effects of enteral versus parenteral methods of nutrition, and the effects of enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral methods of nutrition, among critically ill adults, in terms of mortality, number of ICU-free days up to day 28, and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase on 3 October 2017. We searched clinical trials registries and grey literature, and handsearched reference lists of included studies and related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and quasi-randomized studies comparing EN given to adults in the ICU versus PN or versus EN and PN. We included participants that were trauma, emergency, and postsurgical patients in the ICU. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included 25 studies with 8816 participants; 23 studies were RCTs and two were quasi-randomized studies. All included participants were critically ill in the ICU with a wide range of diagnoses; mechanical ventilation status between study participants varied. We identified 11 studies awaiting classification for which we were unable to assess eligibility, and two ongoing studies.Seventeen studies compared EN versus PN, six compared EN versus EN and PN, two were multi-arm studies comparing EN versus PN versus EN and PN. Most studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately. Most studies reported no methods to blind personnel or outcome assessors to nutrition groups; one study used adequate methods to reduce risk of performance bias.Enteral nutrition versus parenteral nutritionWe found that one feeding route rather than the other (EN or PN) may make little or no difference to mortality in hospital (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.77; 361 participants; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), or mortality within 30 days (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.13; 3148 participants; 11 studies; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether one feeding route rather than the other reduces mortality within 90 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 2461 participants; 3 studies). One study reported mortality at one to four months and we did not combine this in the analysis; we reported this data as mortality within 180 days and it is uncertain whether EN or PN affects the number of deaths within 180 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.97; 46 participants).No studies reported number of ICU-free days up to day 28, and one study reported number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 and it is uncertain whether one feeding route rather than the other reduces the number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 because the certainty of the evidence is very low (mean difference, inverse variance, 0.00, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.97; 2388 participants).We combined data for adverse events reported by more than one study. It is uncertain whether EN or PN affects aspiration because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.03; 2437 participants; 2 studies), and we found that one feeding route rather than the other may make little or no difference to pneumonia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.48; 415 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We found that EN may reduce sepsis (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 361 participants; 7 studies; low-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain whether PN reduces vomiting because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 3.42, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.16; 2525 participants; 3 studies).Enteral nutrition versus enteral nutrition and parenteral nutritionWe found that one feeding regimen rather than another (EN or combined EN or PN) may make little or no difference to mortality in hospital (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.16; 5111 participants; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and at 90 days (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.18; 4760 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether combined EN and PN leads to fewer deaths at 30 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.54; 409 participants; 3 studies). It is uncertain whether one feeding regimen rather than another reduces mortality within 180 days because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.55; 120 participants; 1 study).No studies reported number of ICU-free days or ventilator-free days up to day 28. It is uncertain whether either feeding method reduces pneumonia because the certainty of the evidence is very low (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.15; 205 participants; 2 studies). No studies reported aspiration, sepsis, or vomiting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found insufficient evidence to determine whether EN is better or worse than PN, or than combined EN and PN for mortality in hospital, at 90 days and at 180 days, and on the number of ventilator-free days and adverse events. We found fewer deaths at 30 days when studies gave combined EN and PN, and reduced sepsis for EN rather than PN. We found no studies that reported number of ICU-free days up to day 28. Certainty of the evidence for all outcomes is either low or very low. The 11 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.
-
5.
Effects of parenteral ω-3 fatty acid supplementation in postoperative gastrointestinal cancer on immune function and length of hospital stay: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bai, H, Li, Z, Meng, Y, Yu, Y, Zhang, H, Shen, D, Chen, L
Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition. 2018;(1):121-128
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Omega-3 fatty acids are widely used in nutritional support. However, whether parenteral supplementation with ω-3 fatty acids is effective for gastrointestinal cancer patients remains uncertain. This study assessed the effects of this form of parenteral nutrition on immune function and clinical outcomes in postoperative gastrointestinal cancer patients. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the reference lists of selected studies to identify randomized controlled trials that compared ω-3 fatty acids with a control, and that included immune indices, infectious complications, or length of hospital stay in the final outcomes. The odds ratio and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals were calculated and the I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS Seven trials with a total of 457 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Five pooled trials with 373 participants indicated that the incidence of infectious complications was significantly different between the intervention and control groups (odds ratio: 0.36; 95% confidence interval: 0.18, 0.74, p<0.05). Five trials involving 385 participants indicated that parenteral ω-3 fatty acid supplementation significantly shortened the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference: -2.29, 95% confidence interval: -3.64, -0.93; p<0.05). Meta-analysis also indicated that ω-3 fatty acids increased the level of CD4+ and CD4+/CD8+ ratio. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study suggest that parenteral ω-3 fatty acid supplementation is beneficial for gastrointestinal cancer patients, and is accompanied by improved postoperative immune function and satisfactory clinical outcomes.