Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition: Executive Summary*

Martindale, Robert G.; McClave, Stephen A.; Vanek, Vincent W.; McCarthy, Mary S.; Roberts, Pamela R.; Taylor, Beth; Ochoa, Juan B.; Napolitano, Lena M.; Cresci, Gail

doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181a40116

Cited by 423 publications

(334 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

322

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, patients in the parenteral group received a higher total amount of insulin [mean (SD) 153. 5 Median daily SOFA scores were similar in both groups, and decreased during the intervention period ( Figure 16). …”

Section: Results: Clinical Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early nutritional support via the parenteral versus the enteral route in critically ill patients (CALORIES)

Harvey

Parrott

Harrison

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMalnutrition is a common problem in critically ill patients in UK NHS critical care units. Early nutritional support is therefore recommended to address deficiencies in nutritional state and related disorders in metabolism. However, evidence is conflicting regarding the optimum route (parenteral or enteral) of delivery.ObjectivesTo estimate the effect of early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route on mortality at 30 days and on incremental cost-effectiveness at 1 year. Secondary objectives were to compare the route of early nutritional support on duration of organ support; infectious and non-infectious complications; critical care unit and acute hospital length of stay; all-cause mortality at critical care unit and acute hospital discharge, at 90 days and 1 year; survival to 90 days and 1 year; nutritional and health-related quality of life, resource use and costs at 90 days and 1 year; and estimated lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness.DesignA pragmatic, open, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with an integrated economic evaluation.SettingAdult general critical care units in 33 NHS hospitals in England.Participants2400 eligible patients.InterventionsFive days of early nutritional support delivered via the parenteral (n = 1200) and enteral (n = 1200) route.Main outcome measuresAll-cause mortality at 30 days after randomisation and incremental net benefit (INB) (at £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) at 1 year.ResultsBy 30 days, 393 of 1188 (33.1%) patients assigned to receive early nutritional support via the parenteral route and 409 of 1195 (34.2%) assigned to the enteral route had died [p = 0.57; absolute risk reduction 1.15%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.65 to 4.94; relative risk 0.97 (0.86 to 1.08)]. At 1 year, INB for the parenteral route compared with the enteral route was negative at −£1320 (95% CI −£3709 to £1069). The probability that early nutritional support via the parenteral route is more cost-effective – given the data – is < 20%. The proportion of patients in the parenteral group who experienced episodes of hypoglycaemia (p = 0.006) and of vomiting (p < 0.001) was significantly lower than in the enteral group. There were no significant differences in the 15 other secondary outcomes and no significant interactions with pre-specified subgroups.LimitationsBlinding of nutritional support was deemed to be impractical and, although the primary outcome was objective, some secondary outcomes, although defined and objectively assessed, may have been more vulnerable to observer bias.ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 days for early nutritional support via the parenteral route compared with the enteral route among adults admitted to critical care units in England. On average, costs were higher for the parenteral route, which, combined with similar survival and quality of life, resulted in negative INBs at 1 year.Future workNutritional support is a complex combination of timing, dose, duration, delivery and type, all of which may affect outcomes and costs. Conflicting evidence remains regarding optimum provision to critically ill patients. There is a need to utilise rigorous consensus methods to establish future priorities for basic and clinical research in this area.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN17386141.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Results: Clinical Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The enteral route is the mainstay of nutritional support in critical care 2,5,6 but it is frequently associated with gastrointestinal intolerance and underfeeding. 7,8 In contrast, the parenteral route though more invasive and expensive is more likely to secure delivery of the intended nutrition.…”

Section: Background and Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of early nutritional support via the parenteral versus the enteral route in critically ill patients (CALORIES)

Harvey

Parrott

Harrison

et al. 2016

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patients at high risk of bowel dysmotility and hypotensive patients at risk of developing bowel ischaemia should not receive any fibre, especially insoluble fibre. 4,16 Since bowel dysmotility is present in a great number of ICU patients, the use of most fibre-containing feeds would not be indicated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,4 There is a higher incidence of severe hypoglycaemia in patients treated to tighter limits when blood glucose is maintained between 4.5 and 6.1 mmol/L. 4 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%