Feeding critically ill patients

 

Feeding the Critically Ill Patient: Current Evidence and Best Practices

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Nutritional support is a cornerstone of care for critically ill patients, with significant implications for morbidity, mortality, and functional outcomes. This review examines the current evidence regarding timing, route, composition, and monitoring of nutritional support in critical care settings. Recent paradigm shifts from aggressive early feeding to more personalized approaches highlight the complexity of metabolic responses to critical illness. This review synthesizes the latest research findings and provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize nutritional therapy in intensive care units.

Introduction

Critical illness is characterized by a complex metabolic response involving systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, and altered substrate utilization. These changes create a catabolic state that can rapidly lead to malnutrition, muscle wasting, and impaired immune function. Appropriate nutritional support has been shown to mitigate these adverse effects and improve patient outcomes. However, determining the optimal timing, route, composition, and monitoring of nutritional support remains challenging, with evolving evidence and sometimes conflicting results from clinical trials.

The landscape of critical care nutrition has evolved considerably over the past decade. Prior emphasis on early aggressive feeding has given way to more nuanced approaches that consider the phase of illness, patient characteristics, and metabolic adaptations. This review examines current evidence and provides practical recommendations for feeding critically ill patients across different clinical scenarios.

Metabolic Response to Critical Illness

The metabolic response to critical illness typically progresses through three phases:

1. Acute phase (first hours to days): Characterized by hemodynamic instability, increased energy expenditure, and endogenous substrate mobilization.

2. Post-acute phase (days to weeks): Features persistent catabolism but with improving metabolic efficiency and variable nutrient utilization.

3. Recovery phase (weeks to months): Gradual resumption of anabolic processes, increased protein synthesis, and restoration of body composition.

Understanding these phases is crucial for tailoring nutritional strategies to the evolving metabolic needs of critically ill patients. During the acute phase, endogenous glucose production and lipolysis provide substrates for vital organs, while exogenous nutrients may not be efficiently utilized. As patients transition to later phases, nutritional support becomes increasingly important to prevent further catabolism and support recovery.

Timing of Nutritional Support

Early vs. Delayed Feeding

The timing of nutritional support remains contentious. Early paradigms advocated for initiating feeding within 24-48 hours of ICU admission, based on observational studies suggesting that early nutrition mitigates catabolism. However, recent randomized controlled trials have challenged this approach:

• The EDEN trial found no difference in ventilator-free days or mortality between early trophic feeding (10-20 kcal/h) and full enteral feeding for the first 6 days in patients with acute respiratory failure.

• The CALORIES trial showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality between early parenteral nutrition and early enteral nutrition.

• The EPaNIC trial demonstrated that withholding parenteral nutrition until day 8 was associated with fewer complications compared to early supplementation.

Current evidence suggests that while extreme starvation is harmful, short-term caloric restriction during the acute phase may be tolerated or potentially beneficial in certain patients. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) guidelines now recommend initiating enteral nutrition within 24-48 hours of admission if feasible, but with a gradual progression to target goals rather than immediate full feeding.

Permissive Underfeeding and Nutrient Triage

The concept of "permissive underfeeding" has gained traction, particularly for patients in the acute phase. The PERMIT trial found that providing 40-60% of calculated energy requirements for up to 14 days was non-inferior to full feeding in terms of mortality and secondary outcomes. Similarly, the PermiT trial demonstrated that permissive underfeeding (40-60% of caloric requirements) was not associated with increased mortality compared to standard feeding.

This approach recognizes that during acute stress, the body prioritizes essential metabolic functions through "nutrient triage," potentially making full feeding unnecessary or even harmful. However, protein requirements remain important even during hypocaloric feeding strategies, as protein catabolism continues despite reduced energy intake.

Route of Nutritional Support

Enteral Nutrition

Enteral nutrition (EN) remains the preferred route for feeding critically ill patients who have a functional gastrointestinal tract. Benefits of EN include:

• Maintenance of gut mucosal integrity and barrier function
• Modulation of systemic immune responses
• Preservation of gut microbiome
• Lower cost and fewer complications compared to parenteral nutrition

Post-pyloric versus gastric feeding remains debated. While post-pyloric feeding may reduce aspiration risk, meta-analyses have not shown consistent benefits in terms of pneumonia reduction or mortality. Post-pyloric feeding should be considered in patients with high aspiration risk, significant gastric retention despite prokinetics, or in those requiring prone positioning.

Parenteral Nutrition

Parenteral nutrition (PN) is indicated when EN is contraindicated or insufficient. Indications include:

• Intestinal obstruction or ileus
• Severe malabsorption
• Short bowel syndrome
• High-output fistulae
• Severe hemodynamic instability with compromised splanchnic perfusion

Early studies suggested increased infectious complications with PN, but more recent data indicate that modern PN formulations, when properly administered, do not necessarily increase infection risk. The timing of supplemental PN when EN is insufficient remains controversial. The EPaNIC trial suggested delaying supplemental PN until day 8, while the SPN trial found benefits to earlier supplementation in patients receiving insufficient EN.

Combined Enteral and Parenteral Nutrition

For patients in whom EN alone is insufficient to meet nutritional targets, supplemental PN may be considered. The optimal timing for initiating supplemental PN varies by guideline:

• ESPEN guidelines recommend considering supplemental PN after 3-7 days if EN provides <60% of target
• ASPEN/SCCM guidelines suggest waiting until day 7-10 before initiating supplemental PN

This approach allows time for EN tolerance to improve while avoiding prolonged underfeeding in patients with high nutritional risk.

Nutritional Requirements

Energy Requirements

Determining energy requirements in critically ill patients is challenging due to variable metabolic rates and the limitations of predictive equations. Methods include:

1. Predictive equations: The Penn State equation and modified Harris-Benedict equations are commonly used but have limited accuracy in critically ill populations.

2. Indirect calorimetry: Considered the gold standard, measuring resting energy expenditure through respiratory gas exchange. However, availability is limited in many ICUs.

3. Simplified weight-based calculations: 25-30 kcal/kg/day is commonly used as a starting point, with adjustments based on metabolic phase and clinical condition.

Energy requirements typically increase during the recovery phase, necessitating reassessment and adjustment of nutritional targets throughout the ICU stay.

Protein Requirements

Protein provision is essential to minimize muscle wasting and support recovery. Current recommendations include:

• ESPEN guidelines: 1.3-1.5 g/kg/day for most critically ill patients
• ASPEN/SCCM guidelines: 1.2-2.0 g/kg/day, with higher targets for burn or trauma patients

Emerging evidence suggests that higher protein intake (>1.5 g/kg/day) may benefit selected patients, particularly those with pre-existing malnutrition or prolonged ICU stays. However, excessive protein provision during the acute phase may increase ureagenesis without improving protein synthesis.

Micronutrients

Critical illness increases requirements for certain vitamins and trace elements due to increased oxidative stress, losses, and altered metabolism. Particular attention should be paid to:

• Vitamin D: Low levels are common and associated with worse outcomes
• Thiamine: Essential for carbohydrate metabolism and prevention of refeeding syndrome
• Antioxidants (vitamins C, E, selenium, zinc): May mitigate oxidative stress

Routine supplementation of vitamins and trace elements beyond standard doses remains controversial, though targeted supplementation based on measured deficiencies may be beneficial.

Special Considerations

Refeeding Syndrome

Refeeding syndrome is a potentially fatal complication characterized by electrolyte shifts (particularly phosphate, potassium, and magnesium), fluid retention, and potentially cardiac dysfunction when nutrition is reintroduced after prolonged starvation. Risk factors include:

• BMI <18.5 kg/m²
• Unintentional weight loss >10-15% within 3-6 months
• Little or no nutritional intake for >7-10 days
• Low baseline phosphate, potassium, or magnesium levels

Prevention strategies include:

• Starting at 25-50% of target caloric intake for high-risk patients
• Aggressive electrolyte monitoring and replacement before and during feeding
• Thiamine supplementation before initiating feeding
• Gradual advancement of feeding over 3-5 days

Obesity

Nutritional management of obese critically ill patients presents unique challenges. Hypocaloric, high-protein feeding strategies may be beneficial:

• Energy: 11-14 kcal/kg actual body weight/day or 22-25 kcal/kg ideal body weight/day
• Protein: 2.0-2.5 g/kg ideal body weight/day

This approach aims to minimize the negative effects of overfeeding while providing adequate protein to preserve lean body mass.

Acute Kidney Injury

For patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), nutritional management depends on the presence of renal replacement therapy (RRT):

• Without RRT: Energy requirements similar to other critically ill patients; protein may need restriction (0.8-1.0 g/kg/day) if uremia develops
• With RRT: Increased protein requirements (1.5-2.5 g/kg/day) to compensate for losses during filtration

Monitoring of electrolytes, particularly phosphate, potassium, and magnesium, is essential, as is attention to fluid balance and metabolic acidosis.

Hepatic Failure

Patients with acute liver failure or acute-on-chronic liver failure present particular challenges:

• Energy requirements: 25-30 kcal/kg/day, avoiding overfeeding to prevent hepatic steatosis
• Protein requirements: 1.0-1.5 g/kg/day, with restriction only in severe hepatic encephalopathy unresponsive to standard treatments
• Branched-chain amino acids: May be beneficial in patients with encephalopathy

Close monitoring of ammonia levels, glucose, and electrolytes is essential.

Monitoring Nutritional Therapy

Effective monitoring ensures that nutritional interventions achieve desired outcomes without complications:

1. Regular assessment of energy and protein delivery: Comparing prescribed versus delivered nutrition to identify barriers to delivery.

2. Biochemical parameters: Monitoring electrolytes, glucose, liver function tests, and triglycerides, particularly in patients receiving PN.

3. Physical assessment: Evaluating muscle mass and function through techniques such as ultrasound measurement of quadriceps muscle thickness or handgrip strength.

4. Functional outcomes: Assessing mobility, ventilator dependence, and other functional parameters as patients progress.

5. Tolerance markers: Monitoring gastric residual volumes (though their utility is questioned), abdominal examination, and bowel function.

Recent Innovations and Future Directions

Immunonutrition

Specific nutrients with potential immunomodulatory effects include:

• Glutamine: Early enthusiasm has waned following neutral or negative results in large trials (REDOXS, MetaPlus)
• Omega-3 fatty acids: May reduce inflammation and improve outcomes in ARDS and sepsis
• Arginine: Potentially beneficial in surgical patients but controversial in sepsis
• Antioxidants: Combined antioxidant strategies show promise in specific populations

Current guidelines recommend against routine use of immunonutrition in general ICU populations but suggest considering omega-3 supplementation in specific scenarios like ARDS.

Personalized Nutrition

Advances in metabolomics, proteomics, and genetic analysis are paving the way for more personalized nutritional approaches. Future strategies may include:

• Metabolic phenotyping to predict nutritional requirements
• Biomarker-guided nutritional therapy
• Genetic testing to identify patients at risk for specific nutritional deficiencies or metabolic complications

Nutrition in the Post-ICU Period

Recognition of the "post-intensive care syndrome" has highlighted the importance of nutritional continuity beyond the ICU:

• Progressive increase in caloric intake during recovery
• Continued emphasis on protein to support muscle regeneration
• Integration of nutrition with physical rehabilitation
• Monitoring and supplementation for persistent micronutrient deficiencies

Conclusion

Nutritional support for critically ill patients continues to evolve, with a trend toward more individualized approaches that consider the phase of illness, metabolic status, and patient characteristics. Current evidence suggests that early initiation of enteral nutrition when feasible, with gradual advancement to targets, provides the best outcomes for most patients. Protein provision remains particularly important throughout critical illness, while energy requirements may vary by phase. Regular monitoring and adjustment of nutritional therapy are essential to optimize outcomes.

The integration of nutritional interventions with other aspects of critical care, including physical rehabilitation, pharmacotherapy, and psychological support, represents the future of comprehensive care for critically ill patients. As our understanding of metabolic responses to critical illness continues to advance, nutritional strategies will likely become increasingly tailored to individual patient needs, further improving outcomes in critical care.

References

1. Singer P, Blaser AR, Berger MM, et al. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(1):48-79.

2. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(2):159-211.

3. Rice TW, Wheeler AP, Thompson BT, et al. Initial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury: the EDEN randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307(8):795-803.

4. Harvey SE, Parrott F, Harrison DA, et al. Trial of the route of early nutritional support in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(18):1673-1684.

5. Casaer MP, Mesotten D, Hermans G, et al. Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):506-517.

6. Arabi YM, Aldawood AS, Haddad SH, et al. Permissive Underfeeding or Standard Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(25):2398-2408.

7. Allingstrup MJ, Kondrup J, Wiis J, et al. Early goal-directed nutrition versus standard of care in adult intensive care patients: the single-centre, randomised, outcome assessor-blinded EAT-ICU trial. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(11):1637-1647.

8. Elke G, van Zanten AR, Lemieux M, et al. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):117.

9. Reintam Blaser A, Starkopf J, Alhazzani W, et al. Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: ESICM clinical practice guidelines. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(3):380-398.

10. Weijs PJ, Stapel SN, de Groot SD, et al. Optimal protein and energy nutrition decreases mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a prospective observational cohort study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2012;36(1):60-68.

11. Amrein K, Schnedl C, Holl A, et al. Effect of high-dose vitamin D3 on hospital length of stay in critically ill patients with vitamin D deficiency: the VITdAL-ICU randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1520-1530.

12. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Suchner U, Berger MM. Antioxidant nutrients: a systematic review of trace elements and vitamins in the critically ill patient. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31(3):327-337.

13. Lew CCH, Wong GJY, Cheung KP, et al. Association between malnutrition and 28-day mortality and intensive care length-of-stay in the critically ill: A prospective cohort study. Nutrients. 2017;9(12):1278.

14. Puthucheary ZA, Rawal J, McPhail M, et al. Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness. JAMA. 2013;310(15):1591-1600.

15. Mogensen KM, Robinson MK, Casey JD, et al. Nutritional status and mortality in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(12):2605-2615.

16. Compher C, Chittams J, Sammarco T, et al. Greater protein and energy intake may be associated with improved mortality in higher risk critically ill patients: a multicenter, multinational observational study. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(2):156-163.

17. Allingstrup MJ, Esmailzadeh N, Wilkens Knudsen A, et al. Provision of protein and energy in relation to measured requirements in intensive care patients. Clin Nutr. 2012;31(4):462-468.

18. Preiser JC, van Zanten AR, Berger MM, et al. Metabolic and nutritional support of critically ill patients: consensus and controversies. Crit Care. 2015;19:35.

19. Heyland DK, Elke G, Cook D, et al. Glutamine and antioxidants in the critically ill patient: a post hoc analysis of a large-scale randomized trial. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2015;39(4):401-409.

20. van Zanten ARH, Dhaliwal R, Garrel D, et al. Nutrition therapy in the critical care setting does not benefit patients with coronavirus disease 2019: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2022;50(2):e208-e220.