Nutrition in Critically Ill

 

Nutrition in Critical Illness: Evidence-Based Approaches to Feeding Routes, Caloric Targets, and Tolerance Monitoring

Dr Neeraj Manikath, claude.ai

Abstract

Nutrition therapy remains a cornerstone in the management of critically ill patients, significantly impacting morbidity and mortality outcomes. This review examines current evidence regarding enteral versus parenteral nutrition, optimal macronutrient delivery, advanced caloric and protein requirement calculations, and contemporary approaches to feeding tolerance assessment. We explore recent innovations in critical care nutrition while providing practical implementation strategies for the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Emerging evidence suggests personalized nutrition strategies, guided by indirect calorimetry when available, trophic feeding in early critical illness, and strategic supplemental parenteral nutrition in select patients. Novel monitoring approaches beyond traditional gastric residual volumes are highlighted, along with timing considerations, immunonutrition applications, and integration of nutritional support into overall critical care management.

Keywords: Critical care nutrition, enteral nutrition, parenteral nutrition, protein requirements, feeding intolerance, malnutrition, energy requirements

Introduction

Malnutrition affects up to 50% of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide, with profound implications for clinical outcomes, lengths of stay, and healthcare costs.[1] Despite decades of research, optimal nutritional strategies for critically ill patients remain controversial, particularly regarding route, timing, composition, and monitoring.[2] This review synthesizes recent evidence and provides practical guidance on nutrition assessment, route selection, requirement calculation, and tolerance monitoring in critically ill medical patients.

Nutrition therapy in critical illness aims to attenuate catabolism, prevent lean mass loss, support immune function, and promote recovery while avoiding complications of both underfeeding and overfeeding.[3] These benefits must be balanced against potential risks including aspiration, metabolic derangements, and infectious complications. Recent landmark trials and meta-analyses have reshaped our understanding of critical care nutrition, necessitating an updated framework for clinical practice.[4,5]

This review focuses on four key domains: (1) enteral versus parenteral nutrition routes, (2) calculating and achieving optimal caloric and protein targets, (3) monitoring feeding tolerance and managing complications, and (4) emerging strategies and advances in critical care nutrition.

Nutritional Assessment in Critical Illness

Identification of Nutritional Risk

Several validated tools exist for nutritional risk assessment in critical illness. The Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill (NUTRIC) score incorporates age, APACHE II score, SOFA score, comorbidities, days from hospital to ICU admission, and IL-6 levels (when available) to stratify patients according to nutritional risk.[6] The modified NUTRIC score, which omits IL-6, remains clinically useful. Patients with high NUTRIC scores (≥5) demonstrate greater benefit from optimized protein and calorie delivery.

The Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS-2002) tool offers an alternative approach, incorporating BMI, weight loss, dietary intake reduction, severity of illness, and age.[7] Both tools help identify patients who may benefit most from aggressive nutritional intervention.

Body Composition Analysis

Traditional anthropometry (weight, BMI) provides limited insight into body composition changes during critical illness. Newer modalities include:

• Bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA): Provides estimates of fat mass, fat-free mass, and fluid status, though accuracy may be compromised in altered hydration states.[8]
• Ultrasound: Increasingly used to measure muscle thickness (particularly quadriceps) to assess muscle wasting in ICU patients.[9]
• CT scanning: Where available from routine imaging, provides objective measurement of muscle and adipose tissue areas at L3 vertebral level.[10]

Laboratory Parameters

Traditional biochemical markers (albumin, prealbumin) reflect inflammatory status rather than nutritional state in acute critical illness.[11] More promising biomarkers include:

• Urinary creatinine: For nitrogen balance and muscle catabolism assessment
• C-reactive protein/prealbumin ratio: May better reflect nutritional status in inflammatory states
• Citrulline: As a marker of enterocyte mass and intestinal function

Enteral vs. Parenteral Nutrition Routes

Enteral Nutrition: Evidence and Applications

Enteral nutrition (EN) remains the preferred route for nutritional support in most critically ill patients.[12] When the gastrointestinal tract is functional, EN offers several advantages:

1. Physiological benefits: Maintains gut barrier function, reduces bacterial translocation, and supports gut-associated lymphoid tissue.[13]
2. Reduced infection risk: Multiple meta-analyses demonstrate lower infectious complications with EN compared to parenteral nutrition (PN).[14]
3. Cost-effectiveness: EN is approximately 4-10 times less expensive than PN.[15]

Current guidelines strongly recommend early initiation of EN (within 24-48 hours of ICU admission) in hemodynamically stable patients who cannot maintain voluntary oral intake.[16] This recommendation carries a high level of evidence based on multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses demonstrating reduced infectious complications and, in some studies, mortality benefit.[17]

Enteral Access Options

Selection of appropriate enteral access depends on anticipated duration of feeding, aspiration risk, and anatomical considerations:

• Nasogastric tubes: Suitable for short-term feeding (≤4 weeks), easier placement, but higher aspiration risk
• Nasoduodenal/nasojejunal tubes: May reduce aspiration risk in high-risk patients, though evidence for mortality benefit is limited[18]
• Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG): For anticipated feeding >4 weeks
• Percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ) or surgical jejunostomy: For patients with high aspiration risk requiring long-term feeding

Clinical Pearl: In patients with high gastric residual volumes (GRVs) but otherwise functional GI tracts, pro-motility agents (metoclopramide, erythromycin) should be attempted before switching to post-pyloric feeding or PN.[19]

Parenteral Nutrition: Evidence and Applications

Parenteral nutrition (PN) provides nutritional support when EN is contraindicated or insufficient. Clear indications for early PN include:

1. Anatomical GI tract obstruction or discontinuity
2. Mesenteric ischemia
3. High-output intestinal fistulae
4. Severe malabsorption syndromes
5. Hemodynamic instability precluding enteral feeding

The timing of supplemental PN when EN is insufficient remains debated. The EPaNIC trial demonstrated harm with early supplemental PN (within 48 hours), while the SPN trial showed benefit when initiated after 4 days in patients with inadequate EN.[20,21] Current consensus favors withholding supplemental PN for 5-7 days in most patients while optimizing EN, except in patients with severe malnutrition at baseline.[22]

Hypermetabolism-Guided Route Selection: A Novel Approach

Recent data suggests that metabolic state may guide feeding route selection. Zusman et al. demonstrated that patients with energy expenditure >150% of predicted benefited from combined EN+PN approaches, while those with lower metabolic rates showed no advantage with supplemental PN.[23] This personalized approach warrants further study but offers a physiologically rational strategy for route selection.

Hybrid Approaches and Practical Algorithm

A pragmatic approach to nutrition route selection:

1. Assess GI function and contraindications to EN
2. For functional GI tract: Begin EN within 24-48 hours
3. If EN not meeting >60% of targets by day 3-4: a. For high nutritional risk (NUTRIC ≥5): Consider supplemental PN b. For low nutritional risk: Continue EN optimization until day 7
4. For non-functional GI tract: Begin PN within 24-48 hours if high nutritional risk, within 3-5 days if lower risk

Calculating Caloric and Protein Requirements

Energy Requirements: From Predictive Equations to Indirect Calorimetry

Accurate determination of energy expenditure remains challenging in critical illness. Options include:

Predictive Equations

Common equations include:

1. Harris-Benedict Equation:

   • Men: REE = 66.5 + (13.75 × weight) + (5.003 × height) - (6.775 × age)
   • Women: REE = 655.1 + (9.563 × weight) + (1.850 × height) - (4.676 × age)
   • Stress factors applied: 1.2-1.3 for medical ICU patients

2. Penn State Equation (2003b):

   • For ventilated patients: RMR = Mifflin × 0.96 + Tmax × 167 + Ve × 31 - 6,212
   • Where Mifflin = (10 × weight) + (6.25 × height) - (5 × age) + 5 (males) or -161 (females)

3. 25-30 kcal/kg/day simplified approach:

   • 25 kcal/kg for obese patients (BMI >30)
   • 30 kcal/kg for non-obese, non-malnourished patients
   • Up to 35 kcal/kg for malnourished patients

These equations show significant error rates (±40%) compared to measured energy expenditure, with Penn State equations demonstrating better accuracy in ventilated patients.[24]

Indirect Calorimetry

Indirect calorimetry (IC) represents the gold standard for energy expenditure measurement, determining oxygen consumption (VO₂) and carbon dioxide production (VCO₂) to calculate resting energy expenditure.[25] Modern IC devices are more portable and user-friendly, though still not universally available.

Indications for IC measurement include:

• BMI <18.5 or >40

• 10% weight loss within 6 months

• Expected ICU stay >10 days
• Failure to improve despite apparently adequate nutrition
• Difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation

Clinical Pearl: In the absence of IC, using the Penn State equation for ventilated patients and adjusted Harris-Benedict (with 1.2-1.3 stress factor) for non-ventilated patients provides reasonable estimates for most medical ICU patients.[26]

Metabolic Phase-Specific Targeting

The metabolic response to critical illness evolves through distinct phases, suggesting the need for phase-appropriate nutrition targets:

1. Acute phase (days 1-3):

   • Characterized by catecholamine surge, insulin resistance
   • Target: 15-20 kcal/kg/day (hypocaloric, trophic feeding)

2. Subacute phase (days 4-7):

   • Transition phase with variable catabolism
   • Target: Progressive increase toward 25-30 kcal/kg/day

3. Chronic/recovery phase (>7 days):

   • Anabolic potential returns
   • Target: Full feeding 25-30 kcal/kg/day, possibly higher in recovery

This phased approach aligns with recent RCTs suggesting potential harm from early aggressive feeding but benefit from adequate nutrition in prolonged ICU stays.[27]

Protein Requirements

Protein requirements in critical illness substantially exceed those of healthy individuals, primarily due to accelerated proteolysis, negative nitrogen balance, and decreased anabolic efficiency.

Current recommendations include:

• Minimum: 1.2 g/kg/day for most critically ill patients
• Optimal: 1.5-2.0 g/kg/day for most critically ill patients
• Specialized: 2.0-2.5 g/kg/day for burn patients and highly catabolic states
• Obese patients: 2.0-2.5 g/kg ideal body weight

Recent high-quality RCTs have yielded conflicting results regarding high versus moderate protein administration. The EFFORT trial found no difference in outcomes between patients receiving 0.8 vs. 1.5 g/kg/day.[28] Conversely, observational data from nutritional registries suggests a mortality benefit with protein delivery >1.2 g/kg/day in high-risk patients.[29]

Clinical Pearl: Protein delivery should be prioritized when full caloric targets cannot be met. Achieving >80% of protein targets with 60-70% of caloric targets may represent an optimal approach during the first week of critical illness.[30]

Special Populations

Obese Patients

Obese critically ill patients require specialized nutritional approaches:

• Energy: 11-14 kcal/kg actual weight or 22-25 kcal/kg ideal body weight
• Protein: 2.0-2.5 g/kg ideal body weight
• Permissive underfeeding with adequate protein support is often appropriate[31]

Renal Replacement Therapy

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) significantly increases protein requirements:

• Additional 0.2-0.3 g/kg/day protein to compensate for filter losses
• Total protein recommendation: 1.5-2.5 g/kg/day
• Energy: No adjustment necessary beyond standard critical care recommendations[32]

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO)

ECMO patients demonstrate unique nutritional considerations:

• Higher energy expenditure during early ECMO support
• Protein losses into the circuit
• Recommendation: 25-30 kcal/kg/day, protein 1.5-2.5 g/kg/day
• EN feasible and safe in most ECMO patients despite theoretical concerns[33]

Monitoring Feeding Tolerance and Managing Complications

Beyond Gastric Residual Volumes

Traditional GRV monitoring has come under scrutiny following the REGANE and NUTRIREA-1 trials, which demonstrated no safety advantage of routine GRV checks.[34,35] Contemporary approaches include:

1. Selective GRV monitoring: Reserved for high aspiration risk patients

   • High risk factors: Age >70, reduced GCS, poor oral care, supine positioning, inadequate endotracheal tube cuff pressure, vomiting, significant reflux disease
   • Threshold of concern: >500 mL in most patient populations

2. Alternative tolerance markers:

   • Physical examination: Abdominal distension, tenderness, absence of bowel sounds
   • Bowel function: Diarrhea (>3 loose stools/day or >250g/day), constipation (>3 days without defecation)
   • Biochemical markers: Rising lactate without alternate explanation, portal venous gas on imaging

3. Gastrointestinal ultrasound: Emerging non-invasive technique to assess:

   • Gastric emptying via antral cross-sectional area
   • Small bowel peristalsis
   • Bowel wall thickness as marker of enteropathy[36]

Managing Common Feeding Complications

Diarrhea

Diarrhea affects 15-38% of enterally fed ICU patients. Management approach:

1. Evaluate causality: Often multifactorial rather than feed-related

   • Medication review (antibiotics, sorbitol-containing preparations, prokinetics)
   • C. difficile testing
   • Assessment for hypoalbuminemia and malabsorption

2. Interventions:

   • Fiber-enriched formulas
   • Probiotic supplementation (Saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus species)
   • Reduced infusion rate with gradual advancement
   • Consider post-pyloric feeding in refractory cases[37]

Clinical Pearl: Anti-diarrheal agents should be avoided until infectious causes are excluded, as they may precipitate toxic megacolon in C. difficile infection.

Feeding Intolerance

A standardized approach to feeding intolerance:

1. First line: Prokinetic therapy

   • Metoclopramide 10mg IV Q6H (reduce in renal dysfunction)
   • Erythromycin 100-250mg IV Q6-8H (monitor for QT prolongation)
   • Consider combination therapy before declaring failure

2. Second line: Post-pyloric feeding

   • Endoscopic or electromagnetic-guided placement
   • Continue prokinetics for gastric decompression if needed

3. Third line: Supplemental PN while maintaining trophic EN

   • Maintain some enteral stimulation while meeting nutritional requirements
   • Consider cyclical feeding regimens (nocturnal PN, daytime EN)[38]

Aspiration Risk Reduction

Evidence-based strategies include:

• Head-of-bed elevation (30-45 degrees)
• Continuous rather than bolus feeding in high-risk patients
• Regular assessment of endotracheal cuff pressure (20-30 cmH₂O)
• Routine oral care protocols
• Post-pyloric feeding in selected high-risk patients[39]

Refeeding Syndrome Prevention and Management

Refeeding syndrome remains an underrecognized complication in malnourished critically ill patients. Risk factors include:

• 10% weight loss in preceding 3 months

• Little or no nutritional intake for >5 days
• History of alcohol abuse, chemotherapy, or chronic diuretic use
• Baseline electrolyte abnormalities (particularly hypophosphatemia)

Prevention strategies include:

• Starting at 25% of target (10-15 kcal/kg/day) in high-risk patients
• Daily monitoring of phosphate, magnesium, potassium, and glucose for 3-5 days
• Thiamine supplementation (200-300mg daily) before initiation of feeding
• Gradual advancement by 25% every 24-48 hours as tolerated[40]

Emerging Approaches and Recent Advances

Immunonutrition: Evidence and Applications

Immunonutrition refers to enteral or parenteral formulations supplemented with nutrients that potentially modulate immune function, including:

• Glutamine
• Arginine
• Omega-3 fatty acids
• Nucleotides
• Antioxidants (selenium, vitamins C and E)

Despite theoretical benefits, recent large RCTs have failed to demonstrate consistent mortality benefits. Current evidence supports:

• Omega-3 enriched formulations: May reduce ventilator days and ICU length of stay in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)[41]
• Glutamine supplementation: Not recommended routinely but may benefit specific populations (burn, trauma patients)[42]
• Antioxidant cocktails: Modest evidence for reduced infectious complications[43]

Chronotherapy: Timing Nutritional Delivery

Emerging evidence suggests circadian rhythm-based nutrition timing may optimize metabolic efficiency:

• Higher protein delivery during daytime/active hours
• Carbohydrate reduction during nocturnal hours to limit hyperglycemia
• Intermittent feeding schedules mimicking natural eating patterns

While promising, these approaches require further validation in critical care settings.[44]

Technology Integration

Digital solutions increasingly support nutritional management:

• Automated caloric and protein target calculations integrated into electronic health records
• Continuous feed advancement algorithms
• Visualization tools tracking nutritional adequacy
• Closed-loop systems linking indirect calorimetry to feed adjustment[45]

Practical Clinical Hacks for Critical Care Fellows

1. The 4:1:1 Rule for Quick Requirement Estimation

• 4 kcal/g for protein requirements
• 1 kcal/mL for standard enteral formula estimation
• 1 g protein per 100 kcal of standard formula

This allows rapid mental calculation of supplemental protein needs.

2. Volume-Based Feeding Protocol

Instead of hourly rate targets, prescribe a 24-hour volume target, allowing nursing staff to "catch up" after interruptions:

• Calculate 24-hour formula volume requirement
• Allow flexible administration within 24-hour period
• Associated with improved delivery of prescribed nutrition[46]

3. Concentrated Formulations for Fluid-Restricted Patients

• 2 kcal/mL formulations
• Protein modules for supplementation
• Strategic use of propofol and dextrose-containing fluids in caloric calculations

4. The 100/100 Quality Metric

Target 100% of protein goals and 100% of prescribed tube feeding volume:

• Implement nursing protocols for feed interruption minimization
• Prioritize protein supplementation
• Review patients not meeting targets in daily rounds[47]

Conclusion

Optimal nutritional support represents a key modifiable factor in critical illness outcomes. Contemporary evidence favors early enteral nutrition when feasible, with judicious use of supplemental or exclusive parenteral nutrition in specific scenarios. Personalized calculation of requirements, with consideration of metabolic phase and underlying nutritional status, supersedes one-size-fits-all approaches. Monitoring should incorporate multiple parameters beyond traditional gastric residual volumes, with targeted interventions for common feeding complications.

Future directions in critical care nutrition will likely include further personalization through metabolic and inflammatory phenotyping, integration of body composition assessment into nutritional prescription, and chronobiologically optimized feeding schedules. Implementation of evidence-based nutritional protocols with appropriate quality metrics remains essential for translating research into improved patient outcomes.

References

1. Mogensen KM, Robinson MK, Casey JD, et al. Nutritional Status and Mortality in the Critically Ill. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(12):2605-2615.

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. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(2):159-211.

3. Preiser JC, van Zanten AR, Berger MM, et al. Metabolic and nutritional support of critically ill patients: consensus and controversies. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):35.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Jiang X, Day AG. Identifying critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutrition therapy: the development and initial validation of a novel risk assessment tool. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R268.

7. Kondrup J, Rasmussen HH, Hamberg O, Stanga Z. Nutritional risk screening (NRS 2002): a new method based on an analysis of controlled clinical trials. Clin Nutr. 2003;22(3):321-336.

8. Mundi MS, Patel JJ, Martindale R. Body Composition Technology: Implications for the ICU. Nutr Clin Pract. 2019;34(1):48-58.

9. Pardo E, El Behi H, Boizeau P, et al. Reliability of ultrasound measurements of quadriceps muscle thickness in critically ill patients. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18(1):205.

10. Looijaard WGPM, Dekker IM, Stapel SN, et al. Skeletal muscle quality as assessed by CT-derived skeletal muscle density is associated with 6-month mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):386.

11. Fuhrman MP, Charney P, Mueller CM. Hepatic proteins and nutrition assessment. J Am Diet Assoc. 2004;104(8):1258-1264.

12. 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.

13. Kudsk KA. Current aspects of mucosal immunology and its influence by nutrition. Am J Surg. 2002;183(4):390-398.

14. Lewis SR, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Alderson P, Smith AF. Enteral versus parenteral nutrition and enteral versus a combination of enteral and parenteral nutrition for adults in the intensive care unit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;6(6):CD012276.

15. Pritchard C, Duffy S, Edington J, Pang F. Enteral nutrition and oral nutrition supplements: a review of the economics literature. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2006;30(1):52-59.

16. 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.

17. Doig GS, Heighes PT, Simpson F, et al. Early enteral nutrition, provided within 24 h of injury or intensive care unit admission, significantly reduces mortality in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(12):2018-2027.

18. Alkhawaja S, Martin C, Butler RJ, Gwadry-Sridhar F. Post-pyloric versus gastric tube feeding for preventing pneumonia and improving nutritional outcomes in critically ill adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;8:CD008875.

19. Lewis K, Alqahtani Z, Mcintyre L, et al. The efficacy and safety of prokinetic agents in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):259.

20. 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.

21. Heidegger CP, Berger MM, Graf S, et al. Optimisation of energy provision with supplemental parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Lancet. 2013;381(9864):385-393.

22. Patel JJ, Martindale RG, McClave SA. Controversies Surrounding Critical Care Nutrition: An Appraisal of Permissive Underfeeding, Protein, and Outcomes. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2018;42(3):508-515.

23. Zusman O, Theilla M, Cohen J, et al. Resting energy expenditure, calorie and protein consumption in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):367.

24. Tatucu-Babet OA, Ridley EJ, Tierney AC. Accuracy of predictive equations for estimating resting energy expenditure in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(8):1083-1097.

25. Delsoglio M, Achamrah N, Berger MM, Pichard C. Indirect Calorimetry in Clinical Practice. J Clin Med. 2019;8(9):1387.

26. Frankenfield DC, Ashcraft CM. Estimating energy needs in nutrition support patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017;41(5):712-727.

27. Arabi YM, Casaer MP, Chapman M, et al. The intensive care medicine research agenda in nutrition and metabolism. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(9):1239-1256.

28. Fetterplace K, Deane AM, Tierney A, et al. Targeted Full Energy and Protein Delivery in Critically Ill Patients: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial (FEED Trial). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2018;42(8):1252-1262.

29. 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.

30. Lambell KJ, Tatucu-Babet OA, Chapple LA, et al. Nutrition therapy in critical illness: a review of the literature for clinicians. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):35.

31. Singer P, De Waele E, Sanchez C, et al. GLIM criteria for the diagnosis of malnutrition – A consensus report from the global clinical nutrition community. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(1):1-9.

32. Chauveau P, Fouque D, Combe C, et al. Evolution of the diet from the paleolithic to today: progress or regress? Nephrol Ther. 2013;9(4):202-208.

33. Ohbe H, Jo T, Yamana H, et al. Early enteral nutrition for cardiogenic or obstructive shock requiring venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a nationwide inpatient database study. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(8):1258-1265.

34. Montejo JC, Miñambres E, Bordejé L, et al. Gastric residual volume during enteral nutrition in ICU patients: the REGANE study. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(8):1386-1393.

35. Reignier J, Mercier E, Le Gouge A, et al. Effect of not monitoring residual gastric volume on risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults receiving mechanical ventilation and early enteral feeding: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2013;309(3):249-256.

36. Perez-Calatayud AA, Carrillo-Esper R, Anica-Malagón ED, et al. Point-of-care gastric ultrasound and aspiration risk assessment: a narrative review. Can J Anaesth. 2018;65(4):437-451.

37. Reintam Blaser A, Deane AM, Fruhwald S. Diarrhoea in the critically ill. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2015;21(2):142-153.

38. McClave SA, DiBaise JK, Mullin GE, Martindale RG. ACG Clinical Guideline: Nutrition Therapy in the Adult Hospitalized Patient. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(3):315-334.

39. Metheny NA, Davis-Jackson J, Stewart BJ. Effectiveness of an aspiration risk-reduction protocol. Nurs Res. 2010;59(1):18-25.

40. da Silva JSV, Seres DS, Sabino K, et al. ASPEN Consensus Recommendations for Refeeding Syndrome. Nutr Clin Pract. 2020;35(2):178-195.

41. Dushianthan A, Cusack R, Burgess VA, et al. Immunonutrition for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1(1):CD012041.

42. van Zanten AR, Dhaliwal R, Garrel D, et al. Enteral glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):294.

43. Manzanares W, Lemieux M, Elke G, et al. High-dose antioxidant supplements and mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(8):1106-1116.

44. Reutrakul S, Siwasaranond N, Nimitphong H, et al. Relationships among sleep timing, sleep duration and glycemic control in Type 2 diabetes in Thailand. Chronobiol Int. 2015;32(10):1469-1476.

45. Berger MM, Reintam-Blaser A, Calder PC, et al. Monitoring nutrition in the ICU. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(2):584-593.

46. Yeh DD, Fuentes E, QuraishiSA, et al. Adequate nutrition may get you home: effect of caloric/protein deficits on the discharge destination of critically ill surgical patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(1):37-44.

47. Heyland DK, Cahill N, Day AG. Optimal amount of calories for critically ill patients: depends on how you slice the cake! Crit Care Med. 2011;39(12):2619-2626.