Parenteral Nutrition

Parenteral nutrition (PN) is a life-saving intervention for patients where oral or enteral nutrition (EN) cannot be achieved or is not acceptable. The essential components of PN are carbohydrates, lipids, amino acids, vitamins, trace elements, electrolytes and water. PN should be provided via a central line because of its hypertonicity. However, peripheral PN (with lower nutrient content and larger volume) can be administered via an appropriate non-central line. There are alternatives for the compounding process also, including hospital pharmacy compounded bags and commercial multichamber bags. PN is a costly therapy and has been associated with complications. Metabolic complications related to macro and micronutrient disturbances, such as hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and electrolyte imbalance, may occur at any time during PN therapy, as well as infectious complications, mostly related to venous access. Long-term complications, such as hepatobiliary and bone disease are associated with longer PN therapy and home-PN. To prevent and mitigate potential complications, the optimal monitoring and early management of imbalances is required. PN should be prescribed for malnourished patients or high-risk patients with malnutrition where the feasibility of full EN is in question. Several factors should be considered when providing PN, including timing of initiation, clinical status, and risk of complications.

BackgroundMedical nutrition therapy may be associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay. We wanted to assess nutrition practices in European intensive care units (ICU) and their importance for clinical outcomes.MethodsProspective multinational cohort study in patients staying in ICU ≥ 5 days with outcome recorded until day 90. Macronutrient intake from enteral and parenteral nutrition and non-nutritional sources during the first 15 days after ICU admission was compared with targets recommended by ESPEN guidelines. We modeled associations between three categories of daily calorie and protein intake (low: 20 kcal/kg; > 1.2 g/kg) and the time-varying hazard rates of 90-day mortality or successful weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV).ResultsA total of 1172 patients with median [Q1;Q3] APACHE II score of 18.5 [13.0;26.0] were included, and 24% died within 90 days. Median length of ICU stay was 10.0 [7.0;16.0] days, and 74% of patients could be weaned from invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients reached on average 83% [59;107] and 65% [41;91] of ESPEN calorie and protein recommended targets, respectively. Whereas specific reasons for ICU admission (especially respiratory diseases requiring IMV) were associated with higher intakes (estimate 2.43 [95% CI: 1.60;3.25] for calorie intake, 0.14 [0.09;0.20] for protein intake), a lack of nutrition on the preceding day was associated with lower calorie and protein intakes (- 2.74 [- 3.28; - 2.21] and - 0.12 [- 0.15; - 0.09], respectively). Compared to a lower intake, a daily moderate intake was associated with higher probability of successful weaning (for calories: maximum HR 4.59 [95% CI: 1.5;14.09] on day 12; for protein: maximum HR 2.60 [1.09;6.23] on day 12), and with a lower hazard of death (for calories only: minimum HR 0.15, [0.05;0.39] on day 19). There was no evidence that a high calorie or protein intake was associated with further outcome improvements.ConclusionsCalorie intake was mainly provided according to the targets recommended by the active ESPEN guideline, but protein intake was lower. In patients staying in ICU ≥ 5 days, early moderate daily calorie and protein intakes were associated with improved clinical outcomes. Trial registration NCT04143503 , registered on October 25, 2019.

BackgroundParenteral lipid emulsions in critical care are traditionally based on soybean oil (SO) and rich in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids (FAs). Parenteral nutrition (PN) strategies with the aim of reducing omega-6 FAs may potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients.MethodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients published from inception to June 2021, which investigated clinical omega-6 sparing effects. Two independent reviewers extracted bias risk, treatment details, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Random effect meta-analysis was performed.Results1054 studies were identified in our electronic search, 136 trials were assessed for eligibility and 26 trials with 1733 critically ill patients were included. The median methodologic score was 9 out of 14 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 7, 10). Omega-6 FA sparing PN in comparison with traditional lipid emulsions did not decrease overall mortality (20 studies; risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.76, 1.10; p = 0.34) but hospital length of stay was substantially reduced (6 studies; weighted mean difference [WMD] - 6.88; 95% CI - 11.27, - 2.49; p = 0.002). Among the different lipid emulsions, fish oil (FO) containing PN reduced the length of intensive care (8 studies; WMD - 3.53; 95% CI - 6.16, - 0.90; p = 0.009) and rate of infectious complications (4 studies; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44, 0.95; p = 0.03). When FO was administered as a stand-alone medication outside PN, potential mortality benefits were observed compared to standard care.ConclusionOverall, these findings highlight distinctive omega-6 sparing effects attributed to PN. Among the different lipid emulsions, FO in combination with PN or as a stand-alone treatment may have the greatest clinical impact. Trial registration PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021259238).

BackgroundHead and neck cancer represents the seventh most common cancer diagnosis globally. Maintaining sufficient nutrition is important for preventing malnutrition (undernutrition) and muscle wasting, which contribute to worse outcomes, although many patients are unable to maintain adequate oral intake throughout treatment. This guideline provides practice guidance on nutrition care for patients with head and neck cancer.MethodsAn interdisciplinary team developed key questions and scanned results from a systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central databases back to 2001. Recommendations were created for key questions concerning timing and duration of nutrition support (early vs delayed enteral nutrition [EN], postoperative feeding, and perioperative dietitian intervention), frequency of dietitian and speech pathology consultations, nutrition screening and assessment, macronutrient requirements, enteral access devices, adjunctive strategies (appetite stimulants and continuation of oral intake alongside EN), specialized nutrients (arginine, glutamine, ω-3, and immunonutrition), and interdisciplinary care.ResultsNinety-two studies were included. Recommendations were made supporting early initiation of EN when oral intake is inadequate, nutrition within 24 h after surgery, weekly consultation with a dietitian during radiotherapy, malnutrition screening and assessment with validated tools, interdisciplinary models of care, dietitian involvement before and after surgery, and when to consider use of specialized nutrients. Recommendations are also provided for protein intake (1.2-1.5 g/kg/day) and energy intake (≥30 kcal/kg/day).ConclusionThis guideline provides guidance for the nutrition care of patients with head and neck cancer, identifies research gaps, and calls for standardized outcome reporting to further the state of the evidence. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.