-
1.
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.
-
2.
Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines.
Reintam Blaser, A, Starkopf, J, Alhazzani, W, Berger, MM, Casaer, MP, Deane, AM, Fruhwald, S, Hiesmayr, M, Ichai, C, Jakob, SM, et al
Intensive care medicine. 2017;(3):380-398
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidelines for early enteral nutrition (EEN) during critical illness. METHODS We aimed to compare EEN vs. early parenteral nutrition (PN) and vs. delayed EN. We defined "early" EN as EN started within 48 h independent of type or amount. We listed, a priori, conditions in which EN is often delayed, and performed systematic reviews in 24 such subtopics. If sufficient evidence was available, we performed meta-analyses; if not, we qualitatively summarized the evidence and based our recommendations on expert opinion. We used the GRADE approach for guideline development. The final recommendations were compiled via Delphi rounds. RESULTS We formulated 17 recommendations favouring initiation of EEN and seven recommendations favouring delaying EN. We performed five meta-analyses: in unselected critically ill patients, and specifically in traumatic brain injury, severe acute pancreatitis, gastrointestinal (GI) surgery and abdominal trauma. EEN reduced infectious complications in unselected critically ill patients, in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and after GI surgery. We did not detect any evidence of superiority for early PN or delayed EN over EEN. All recommendations are weak because of the low quality of evidence, with several based only on expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS We suggest using EEN in the majority of critically ill under certain precautions. In the absence of evidence, we suggest delaying EN in critically ill patients with uncontrolled shock, uncontrolled hypoxaemia and acidosis, uncontrolled upper GI bleeding, gastric aspirate >500 ml/6 h, bowel ischaemia, bowel obstruction, abdominal compartment syndrome, and high-output fistula without distal feeding access.
-
3.
Vitamin D deficiency in critically ill children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
McNally, JD, Nama, N, O'Hearn, K, Sampson, M, Amrein, K, Iliriani, K, McIntyre, L, Fergusson, D, Menon, K
Critical care (London, England). 2017;(1):287
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vitamin D deficiency (VDD) has been hypothesized not only to be common but also to represent a potentially modifiable risk factor for greater illness severity and clinical outcome during critical illness. The objective of this systematic review was to determine the frequency of VDD in pediatric critical illness and its association with clinical outcomes. METHODS MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched through December 12, 2016, with no date or language restrictions. The primary objective was to estimate the prevalence of VDD in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and compare vitamin D status with healthy control populations. Secondary objectives were to evaluate whether VDD is associated with mortality, increased illness severity, PICU interventions, and patient clinical course. Random effects meta-analysis was used to calculate pooled VDD event rate, compare levels with those of control subjects, and evaluate for associations between VDD and clinical outcome. RESULTS Among 2700 citations, 17 studies meeting study eligibility were identified. The studies reported a total of 2783 critically ill children and had a median sample size of 120 (range 12-511). The majority of studies used a 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level less than 50 nmol/L to define VDD, and the pooled VDD prevalence was 54.8 (95% CI 45.4-63.9). Average 25(OH)D levels were significantly lower in PICU patients than in healthy control subjects (pooled difference -17.3 nmol/L, 95% CI -14.0 to -20.6). In a meta-analysis calculation, we found that VDD was associated with increased mortality (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11-2.36), illness severity, and need for PICU interventions. CONCLUSIONS Approximately 50% of critically ill children have VDD at the time of PICU admission, defined as a blood total 25(OH)D concentration under 50 nmol/L. VDD was further determined to be associated with greater illness severity, multiple organ dysfunction, and mortality in the PICU setting. Clinical trials are required to determine if optimization of vitamin D status improves patient outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO, CRD42016026617 . Registered on 11 January 2016.
-
4.
Antifungal agents for preventing fungal infections in non-neutropenic critically ill patients.
Cortegiani, A, Russotto, V, Maggiore, A, Attanasio, M, Naro, AR, Raineri, SM, Giarratano, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;(1):CD004920
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Invasive fungal infections are important causes of morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. Early institution of antifungal therapy is pivotal for mortality reduction. Starting a targeted antifungal therapy after culture positivity and fungi identification requires a long time. Therefore, alternative strategies (globally defined as 'untargeted antifungal treatments') for antifungal therapy institution in patients without proven microbiological evidence of fungal infections have been discussed by international guidelines. This review was originally published in 2006 and updated in 2016. This updated review provides additional evidence for the clinician dealing with suspicion of fungal infection in critically ill, non-neutropenic patients, taking into account recent findings in this field. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) compared to placebo or no antifungal or any other antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) in non-neutropenic, critically ill adults and children. We assessed effectiveness in terms of total (all-cause) mortality and incidence of proven invasive fungal infections as primary outcomes. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases to February 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OVID), and EMBASE (OVID). We also searched reference lists of identified studies and major reviews, abstracts of conference proceedings, scientific meetings and clinical trials registries. We contacted experts in the field, study authors and pharmaceutical companies as part of the search strategy. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (irrespective of language or publication status) comparing the use of untargeted treatment with any antifungal drug (either systemic or nonabsorbable) to placebo, no antifungal, or another antifungal agent in non-neutropenic critically ill participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Three authors independently applied selection criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We resolved any discrepancies by discussion. We synthesized data using the random-effects model and expressed the results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed overall evidence quality using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included 22 studies (total of 2761 participants). Of those 22 studies, 12 were included in the original published review and 10 were newly identified. Eleven trials compared the use of fluconazole to placebo or no antifungal treatment. Three trials compared ketoconazole versus placebo. One trial compared anidulafungin with placebo. One trial compared caspofungin to placebo. Two trials compared micafungin to placebo. One trial compared amphotericin B to placebo. Two trials compared nystatin to placebo and one trial compared the effect of clotrimazole, ketoconazole, nystatin and no treatment. We found two new ongoing studies and four new studies awaiting classification. The RCTs included participants of both genders with wide age range, severity of critical illness and clinical characteristics. Funding sources from pharmaceutical companies were reported in 11 trials and one trial reported funding from a government agency. Most of the studies had an overall unclear risk of bias for key domains of this review (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, incomplete outcome data). Two studies had a high risk of bias for key domains. Regarding the other domains (blinding of participants and personnel, outcome assessment, selective reporting, other bias), most of the studies had a low or unclear risk but four studies had a high risk of bias.There was moderate grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment did not significantly reduce or increase total (all-cause) mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.09, P value = 0.36; participants = 2374; studies = 19). With regard to the outcome of proven invasive fungal infection, there was low grade evidence that untargeted antifungal treatment significantly reduced the risk (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.83, P value = 0.0001; participants = 2024; studies = 17). The risk of fungal colonization was significantly reduced (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.97, P value = 0.03; participants = 1030; studies = 12) but the quality of evidence was low. There was no difference in the risk of developing superficial fungal infection (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.29, P value = 0.24; participants = 662; studies = 5; low grade of evidence) or in adverse events requiring cessation of treatment between the untargeted treatment group and the other group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, P value = 0.51; participants = 1691; studies = 11; low quality of evidence). The quality of evidence for the outcome of total (all-cause) mortality was moderate due to limitations in study design. The quality of evidence for the outcome of invasive fungal infection, superficial fungal infection, fungal colonization and adverse events requiring cessation of therapy was low due to limitations in study design, non-optimal total population size, risk of publication bias, and heterogeneity across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There is moderate quality evidence that the use of untargeted antifungal treatment is not associated with a significant reduction in total (all-cause) mortality among critically ill, non-neutropenic adults and children compared to no antifungal treatment or placebo. The untargeted antifungal treatment may be associated with a reduction of invasive fungal infections but the quality of evidence is low, and both the heterogeneity and risk of publication bias is high.Further high-quality RCTs are needed to improve the strength of the evidence, especially for more recent and less studied drugs (e.g. echinocandins). Future trials should adopt standardized definitions for microbiological outcomes (e.g. invasive fungal infection, colonization) to reduce heterogeneity. Emergence of resistance to antifungal drugs should be considered as outcome in studies investigating the effects of untargeted antifungal treatment to balance risks and benefit.
-
5.
Fluid strategies and outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, systemic inflammatory response syndrome and sepsis: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Silversides, JA, Ferguson, AJ, McAuley, DF, Blackwood, B, Marshall, JC, Fan, E
Systematic reviews. 2015;:162
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fluid administration to critically ill patients remains the subject of considerable controversy. While intravenous fluid given for resuscitation may be life-saving, a positive fluid balance over time is associated with worse outcomes in critical illness. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the existing evidence regarding the relationship between fluid administration or balance and clinically important patient outcomes in critical illness. METHODS We will search Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980 to the present and key conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. We will include studies of critically ill adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). We will include randomised controlled trials comparing two or more fluid regimens of different volumes of fluid and observational studies reporting the relationship between volume of fluid administered or fluid balance and outcomes including mortality, lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stay and organ dysfunction. Two independent reviewers will assess articles for eligibility, data extraction and quality appraisal. We will conduct a narrative and/or meta-analysis as appropriate. DISCUSSION While fluid management has been extensively studied and discussed in the critical care literature, no systematic review has attempted to summarise the evidence for post-resuscitation fluid strategies in critical illness. Results of the proposed systematic review will inform practice and the design of future clinical trials. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42013005608. ( http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ).
-
6.
Statin therapy in critically-ill patients with severe sepsis: a review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Thomas, G, Hraiech, S, Loundou, A, Truwit, J, Kruger, P, Mcauley, DF, Papazian, L, Roch, A
Minerva anestesiologica. 2015;(8):921-30
Abstract
UNLABELLED While statins are indicated to reduce blood cholesterol levels, they also have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects. Several observational cohort studies suggested that statins may improve survival and reduce complications in patients with sepsis. Recent randomized controlled studies in critically ill patients have been conducted and published. In this paper we present a meta-analysis of these randomized trials. METHODS An electronic article search through PubMed was performed. Only randomized controlled trials including critically ill adult patients with severe sepsis were retained. A meta-analysis was performed as detailed in text below. Overall analysis including 1818 patients total from 4 studies showed that there was no difference in 60-day mortality between statins (223/903) and placebo (233/899) [risk ratio, 0.930; 95% CI, 0.722 to 1.198]. Similarly, no difference in 28-day mortality was observed between groups (statins 191/907, placebo 199/911; risk ratio 0.953; 95% CI, 0.715 to 1.271). The results of this meta-analysis confirm that the use of statin therapy should not be recommended in the management of severe sepsis in critically ill patients. Statins should be continued with caution and only if necessary, as one study reported that the statin group had a higher rate of hepatic and renal failure.
-
7.
Indications and management of mechanical fluid removal in critical illness.
Rosner, MH, Ostermann, M, Murugan, R, Prowle, JR, Ronco, C, Kellum, JA, Mythen, MG, Shaw, AD, ,
British journal of anaesthesia. 2014;(5):764-71
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) dedicated its Twelfth Consensus Conference (2013) to all aspects of fluid therapy, including the management of fluid overload (FO). The aim of the working subgroup 'Mechanical fluid removal' was to review the indications, prescription, and management of mechanical fluid removal within the broad context of fluid management of critically ill patients. METHODS The working group developed a list of preliminary questions and objectives and performed a modified Delphi analysis of the existing literature. Relevant studies were identified through a literature search using the MEDLINE database and bibliographies of relevant research and review articles. RESULTS After review of the existing literature, the group agreed the following consensus statements: (i) in critically ill patients with FO and with failure of or inadequate response to pharmacological therapy, mechanical fluid removal should be considered as a therapy to optimize fluid balance. (ii) When using mechanical fluid removal or management, targets for rate of fluid removal and net fluid removal should be based upon the overall fluid balance of the patient and also physiological variables, individualized, and reassessed frequently. (iii) More research on the role and practice of mechanical fluid removal in critically ill patients not meeting fluid balance goals (including in children) is necessary. CONCLUSION Mechanical fluid removal should be considered as a therapy for FO, but more research is necessary to determine its exact role and clinical application.
-
8.
Small bowel feeding and risk of pneumonia in adult critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Alhazzani, W, Almasoud, A, Jaeschke, R, Lo, BW, Sindi, A, Altayyar, S, Fox-Robichaud, AE
Critical care (London, England). 2013;(4):R127
Abstract
INTRODUCTION This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of small bowel feeding compared with gastric feeding on the frequency of pneumonia and other patient-important outcomes in critically ill patients. METHODS We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, clinicaltrials.gov and personal files from 1980 to Dec 2012, and conferences and proceedings from 1993 to Dec 2012 for randomized trials of adult critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) comparing small bowel feeding to gastric feeding, and evaluating risk of pneumonia, mortality, length of ICU stay, achievement of caloric requirements, duration of mechanical ventilation, vomiting, and aspiration. Independently, in duplicate, we abstracted trial characteristics, outcomes and risk of bias. RESULTS We included 19 trials with 1394 patients. Small bowel feeding compared to gastric feeding was associated with reduced risk of pneumonia (risk ratio [RR] 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55, 0.90; P = 0.004; I2 = 0%) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.53, 0.89; P = 0.005; I2 = 0%), with no difference in mortality (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.90, 1.29; P = 0.43; I2 = 0%), length of ICU stay (WMD -0.57; 95%CI -1.79, 0.66; P = 0.37; I2 = 0%), duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -1.01; 95%CI -3.37, 1.35; P = 0.40; I2 = 17%), gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.56, 1.42; P = 0.64; I2 = 0%), aspiration (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.52, 1.65; P = 0.79; I2 = 0%), and vomiting (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.53, 1.54; P = 0.72; I2 = 57%). The overall quality of evidence was low for pneumonia outcome. CONCLUSIONS Small bowel feeding, in comparison with gastric feeding, reduces the risk of pneumonia in critically ill patients without affecting mortality, length of ICU stay or duration of mechanical ventilation. These observations are limited by variation in pneumonia definition, imprecision, risk of bias and small sample size of individual trials.
-
9.
Effect of glucose-insulin-potassium infusion on mortality in critical care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Puskarich, MA, Runyon, MS, Trzeciak, S, Kline, JA, Jones, AE
Journal of clinical pharmacology. 2009;(7):758-67
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
This study seeks to measure the treatment effect of glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) infusion on mortality in critically ill patients. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials is conducted, comparing GIK treatment with standard care or placebo in critically ill adult patients. The primary outcome variable is mortality. Two authors independently extract data and assess study quality. The primary analysis is based on the random effects model to produce pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The search yields 1720 potential publications; 23 studies are included in the final analysis, providing a sample of 22,525 patients. The combined results demonstrate no heterogeneity (P=.57, I2=0%) and no effect on mortality (OR=1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11) with GIK treatment. No experimental studies of shock or sepsis populations are identified. This meta-analysis finds that there is no mortality benefit to GIK infusion in critically ill patients; however, study populations are limited to acute myocardial infarction and cardiovascular surgery patients. No studies are identified using GIK in patients with septic shock or other forms of circulatory shock, providing an absence of evidence regarding the effect of GIK as a therapy in patients with shock.