This document represents the first collaboration between 2 organizations-the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the Society of Critical Care Medicine-to describe best practices in nutrition therapy in critically ill children. The target of these guidelines is intended to be the pediatric critically ill patient (>1 month and <18 years) expected to require a length of stay >2-3 days in a PICU admitting medical, surgical, and cardiac patients. In total, 2032 citations were scanned for relevance. The PubMed/MEDLINE search resulted in 960 citations for clinical trials and 925 citations for cohort studies. The EMBASE search for clinical trials culled 1661 citations. In total, the search for clinical trials yielded 1107 citations, whereas the cohort search yielded 925. After careful review, 16 randomized controlled trials and 37 cohort studies appeared to answer 1 of the 8 preidentified question groups for this guideline. We used the GRADE criteria (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to adjust the evidence grade based on assessment of the quality of study design and execution. These guidelines are not intended for neonates or adult patients. The guidelines reiterate the importance of nutrition assessment-particularly, the detection of malnourished patients who are most vulnerable and therefore may benefit from timely intervention. There is a need for renewed focus on accurate estimation of energy needs and attention to optimizing protein intake. Indirect calorimetry, where feasible, and cautious use of estimating equations and increased surveillance for unintended caloric underfeeding and overfeeding are recommended. Optimal protein intake and its correlation with clinical outcomes are areas of great interest. The optimal route and timing of nutrient delivery are areas of intense debate and investigations. Enteral nutrition remains the preferred route for nutrient delivery. Several strategies to optimize enteral nutrition during critical illness have emerged. The role of supplemental parenteral nutrition has been highlighted, and a delayed approach appears to be beneficial. Immunonutrition cannot be currently recommended. Overall, the pediatric critical care population is heterogeneous, and a nuanced approach to individualizing nutrition support with the aim of improving clinical outcomes is necessary.

Background This guideline updates recommendations from the 2016 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN)/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) critical care nutrition guideline for five foundational questions central to critical care nutrition support. Methods The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to develop and summarize evidence for clinical practice recommendations. Clinical outcomes were assessed for (1) higher vs lower energy dose, (2) higher vs lower protein dose, (3) exclusive isocaloric parenteral nutrition (PN) vs enteral nutrition (EN), (4) supplemental PN (SPN) plus EN vs EN alone, (5A) mixed‐oil lipid injectable emulsions (ILEs) vs soybean oil, and (5B) fish oil (FO)–containing ILE vs non‐FO ILE. To assess safety, weight‐based energy intake and protein were plotted against hospital mortality. Results Between January 1, 2001, and July 15, 2020, 2320 citations were identified and data were abstracted from 36 trials including 20,578 participants. Patients receiving FO had decreased pneumonia rates of uncertain clinical significance. Otherwise, there were no differences for any outcome in any question. Owing to a lack of certainty regarding harm, the energy prescription recommendation was decreased to 12–25 kcal/kg/day. Conclusion No differences in clinical outcomes were identified among numerous nutrition interventions, including higher energy or protein intake, isocaloric PN or EN, SPN, or different ILEs. As more consistent critical care nutrition support data become available, more precise recommendations will be possible. In the meantime, clinical judgment and close monitoring are needed. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.

This document represents the first collaboration between two organizations, American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, to describe best practices in nutrition therapy in critically ill children. The target of these guidelines is intended to be the pediatric (> 1 mo and < 18 yr) critically ill patient expected to require a length of stay greater than 2 or 3 days in a PICU admitting medical, surgical, and cardiac patients. In total, 2,032 citations were scanned for relevance. The PubMed/Medline search resulted in 960 citations for clinical trials and 925 citations for cohort studies. The EMBASE search for clinical trials culled 1,661 citations. In total, the search for clinical trials yielded 1,107 citations, whereas the cohort search yielded 925. After careful review, 16 randomized controlled trials and 37 cohort studies appeared to answer one of the eight preidentified question groups for this guideline. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to adjust the evidence grade based on assessment of the quality of study design and execution. These guidelines are not intended for neonates or adult patients. The guidelines reiterate the importance of nutritional assessment, particularly the detection of malnourished patients who are most vulnerable and therefore potentially may benefit from timely intervention. There is a need for renewed focus on accurate estimation of energy needs and attention to optimizing protein intake. Indirect calorimetry, where feasible, and cautious use of estimating equations and increased surveillance for unintended caloric underfeeding and overfeeding are recommended. Optimal protein intake and its correlation with clinical outcomes are areas of great interest. The optimal route and timing of nutrient delivery is an area of intense debate and investigations. Enteral nutrition remains the preferred route for nutrient delivery. Several strategies to optimize enteral nutrition during critical illness have emerged. The role of supplemental parenteral nutrition has been highlighted, and a delayed approach appears to be beneficial. Immunonutrition cannot be currently recommended. Overall, the pediatric critical care population is heterogeneous, and a nuanced approach to individualizing nutrition support with the aim of improving clinical outcomes is necessary.

Crohn's disease symptomaƟc remission Fecal calprotecƟn response CRP response Week 6 Outcomes Specific Carbohydrate Diet Mediterranean Diet Participants achieving outcome (%) See Covering the Cover synopsis on page 739; See editorial on page 798. BACKGROUND & AIMS: This study compared the effectiveness of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) to the Mediterranean diet (MD) as treatment for Crohn's disease (CD) with mild to moderate symptoms. METHODS: Adult patients with CD and with mild-to-moderate symptoms were randomly assigned 1:1 to consume the MD or SCD for 12 weeks. For the first 6 weeks, participants received prepared meals and snacks according to their assigned diet. After 6 weeks, participants were instructed to follow the diet independently. The primary outcome was symptomatic remission at week 6. Key secondary outcomes at Gastroenterology 2021;161:837-852 CLINICAL ATweek 6 included fecal calprotectin (FC) response (FC <250 mg/g and reduction by >50% among those with baseline FC >250 mg/g) and C-reactive protein (CRP) response (highsensitivity CRP <5 mg/L and >50% reduction from baseline among those with high-sensitivity CRP >5 mg/L). RESULTS:The study randomized 194 patients, and 191 were included in the efficacy analyses. The percentage of participants who achieved symptomatic remission at week 6 was not superior with the SCD (SCD, 46.5%; MD, 43.5%; P ¼ .77). FC response was achieved in 8 of 23 participants (34.8%) with the SCD and in 4 of 13 participants (30.8%) with the MD (P ¼ .83). CRP response was achieved in 2 of 37 participants (5.4%) with the SCD and in 1 of 28 participants (3.6%) with the MD (P ¼ .68). CONCLUSIONS: The SCD was not superior to the MD to achieve symptomatic remission, FC response, and CRP response. CRP response was uncommon. Given these results, the greater ease of following the MD and other health benefits associated with the MD, the MD may be preferred to the SCD for most patients with CD with mild to moderate symptoms. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03058679

No abstract