Search

There has been increasing interest in the role of micronutrient supplementation in critical care. This narrative review summarizes the recent studies on micronutrients in critically ill patients. We searched two databases for primary randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of micronutrient supplementation in patients with critical illness published from January 2021 to August 2023. Personal files, reference lists of included studies, and previous reviews were also screened. Twelve studies reported on vitamin C, four studies on vitamin D, three studies on thiamin, two studies on multivitamins, and one study on cobalamin. The therapeutic effects of vitamin C appear mixed, although vitamin C monotherapy appears more promising than vitamin C combination therapy. Intramuscular administration of vitamin D appeared to lower mortality, mechanical ventilation duration, and intensive care unit stay, whereas enteral administration showed limited clinical benefits. Intravenous thiamin was not associated with improved outcomes in patients with septic shock or hypophosphatemia. Preliminary evidence suggests reduced vasopressor dose with cobalamin. Decreased disease severity and hospital stay in patients with COVID-19 with vitamins A-E requires further investigation, whereas providing solely B-group vitamins did not demonstrate therapeutic effects. It is currently premature to endorse the provision of high-dose micronutrients in critical illness to improve clinical outcomes. This review may help to inform the design of future trials that will help better elucidate the optimal dosage and form of micronutrients, methods of administration, and subgroups of patients with critical illness who may most benefit., (© 2024 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.)

Background: On the basis of low-quality evidence, international critical care nutrition guidelines recommend a wide range of protein doses. The effect of delivering high-dose protein during critical illness is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that a higher dose of protein provided to critically ill patients would improve their clinical outcomes., Methods: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547., Findings: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline., Interpretation: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The UK sites received support in the form of protein supplement supply from Nutrinovo (prosource tube feed [TF]) and Stanningly Pharma (Renapro Shot), and CA$20 000 from Nutricia to cover insurance and project management costs locally. Those that provided financial and product support for the trial had no role in designing the protocol, conducting the trial, or analysing the data, and did not have access to the data nor influence the content of the publication. We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Objectives: Intensive care unit (ICU) enteral nutrition (EN) can involve frequent feeding interruption (FI). The prevalence, causes, and duration of such interruption were investigated., Methods: Reasons for EN FI identified from extensive literature review were prospectively collected in adult mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Results were reported by descriptive statistics. Baseline and nutritional characteristics between patients who died and those alive at day 60 were compared., Results: A total of 148 patients receiving ≥1 day of EN for the full 12-day observational period were included in the analysis. About 332 episodes of EN FI were recorded and contributed to 12.8% (4190 hours) of the total 1367 evaluable nutrition days. For each patient, FI occurred for a median of 3 days and the total duration of FI for the entire ICU stay was 24.5 hours. Median energy and protein deficits per patient due to FI for the entire ICU stay were -1780.23 kcal and -100.58 g, respectively. Duration of FI, days with FI, and the amount of energy and protein deficits due to FI were not different between patients who had died and those who were still alive at day 60 (all P > 0.05). About 72% of the total duration of EN FI was due to procedural-related and potentially avoidable causes (primarily human factors), while only about 20% was due to feeding intolerances., Conclusions: EN FI occurred primarily due to human factors, which may be minimized by adherence to an evidence-based feeding protocol as determined by a nutrition support team., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Nutrition support is an integral part of care among critically ill patients. However, critically ill patients are commonly underfed, leading to consequences such as increased length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, time on mechanical ventilation, infectious complications, and mortality. Nevertheless, the prevalence of underfeeding has not resolved since the first description of this problem more than 15 years ago. This may be due to the traditional conservative feeding approaches. A novel feeding protocol (the Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol in Critically Ill Patients [PEP uP] protocol) was proposed and proven to improve feeding adequacy significantly. However, some of the components in the protocol are controversial and subject to debate. This article is a review of the supporting evidences and some of the controversy associated with each component of the PEP uP protocol., (© 2015 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.)