Nutrition in Critical Illness: Debunking Myths and Refining Practice

A Contemporary Review for Critical Care Practitioners

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Nutrition support in critically ill patients has evolved considerably over the past decade, with emerging evidence challenging long-held dogmas and refining clinical practice. This review examines three pivotal areas in critical care nutrition: permissive underfeeding during acute illness, the evolving role of immunonutrition, and the prevention and management of refeeding syndrome. We synthesize current evidence, debunk common myths, and provide practical clinical pearls to optimize nutritional therapy in the intensive care unit.

Keywords: Critical care nutrition, permissive underfeeding, immunonutrition, refeeding syndrome, ICU nutrition

Introduction

Nutrition therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU) represents a unique therapeutic challenge where physiological derangements, altered pharmacokinetics, and evolving metabolic demands intersect with life-sustaining interventions. The traditional paradigm of "feeding to meet calculated energy requirements from day one" has been challenged by contemporary research demonstrating that the critically ill patient's metabolic response to acute injury differs fundamentally from starvation in healthy individuals.

The metabolic stress response, characterized by insulin resistance, accelerated proteolysis, and altered substrate utilization, creates a milieu where aggressive early nutrition may not confer anticipated benefits and could potentially cause harm. This review addresses three critical domains where evidence-based practice has diverged from historical approaches, providing clinicians with actionable insights to navigate the complex landscape of ICU nutrition.

Permissive Underfeeding in the Acute Phase: Evidence and Protocols

The Paradigm Shift

MYTH: Critically ill patients require full caloric replacement from ICU day one to prevent malnutrition and improve outcomes.

REALITY: During the acute phase of critical illness (typically the first 7-10 days), permissive underfeeding—providing 40-70% of calculated energy requirements—may be as effective or superior to full feeding, with improved glycemic control and potentially fewer complications.

Physiological Rationale

The acute stress response triggers a catabolic state mediated by counter-regulatory hormones (cortisol, catecholamines, glucagon) that cannot be reversed by nutrition alone. Autophagy, the cellular "self-eating" process that removes damaged organelles and proteins, is crucial for cellular homeostasis during stress but is suppressed by nutrient abundance, particularly amino acids and insulin. This has led to the hypothesis that permissive underfeeding may allow beneficial adaptive responses while avoiding complications of overfeeding.

Key Evidence

The landmark PermiT trial (2015) randomized 894 mechanically ventilated patients to permissive underfeeding (40-60% of calculated energy) versus standard feeding (70-100%) for up to 14 days. The study found no difference in 90-day mortality, ICU length of stay, or infectious complications, challenging the necessity of aggressive early nutrition.(1)

The EPaNIC trial (2011) demonstrated that withholding parenteral nutrition during the first week of ICU stay (allowing only enteral nutrition when tolerated) reduced ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and infectious complications compared to early supplemental parenteral nutrition.(2) A 2-year follow-up revealed no adverse effects on physical function or quality of life.(3)

Conversely, the EAT-ICU trial (2018) comparing early full energy (100% by enteral nutrition) versus standard care (≈50%) in 203 patients showed no mortality benefit but increased gastrointestinal intolerance with aggressive feeding.(4)

A 2019 meta-analysis of 15 RCTs (n=4,798 patients) concluded that trophic (minimal) or hypocaloric feeding strategies in the first week did not increase mortality compared to full feeding, with a trend toward reduced infectious complications.(5)

Clinical Pearls and Practical Protocols

Pearl 1: The 24-48 Hour Rule During the first 24-48 hours of acute critical illness (particularly septic shock, severe trauma, or post-cardiac arrest), focus on hemodynamic stabilization. Initiate trophic feeding (10-20 mL/hr) primarily to maintain gut integrity rather than meet caloric goals.

Pearl 2: Energy Target Stratification

Days 1-3: 10-20 kcal/kg/day (trophic feeding)
Days 4-7: 50-70% of energy target (permissive underfeeding)
Days 8-10: Advance toward 80-100% of target as patient stabilizes and transitions from acute to recovery phase

Pearl 3: Indirect Calorimetry When Available Standard predictive equations (Harris-Benedict, Penn State) frequently misestimate energy expenditure in critically ill patients by ±30%. Indirect calorimetry provides measured resting energy expenditure and should guide targets when available, particularly in obese patients, those on neuromuscular blockade, or prolonged ICU stays.(6)

Oyster (Hidden Danger): The "catch-up feeding" trap. As patients improve clinically around day 7-10, there's temptation to rapidly escalate nutrition to compensate for early deficits. This can precipitate refeeding syndrome, hyperglycemia, and gastrointestinal intolerance. Gradual advancement (increase by 10-20 kcal/kg every 48 hours) is safer.

Hack: For patients with body mass index >30 kg/m², use permissive underfeeding with higher protein delivery (1.2-2.0 g/kg ideal body weight) while restricting non-protein calories to 50-70% of estimated needs. This approach leverages endogenous fat stores while minimizing protein catabolism.(7)

Protein: The Exception to Underfeeding

While energy restriction may be appropriate early, protein delivery should not be similarly restricted. Aim for 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day of protein even during permissive underfeeding phases, advancing to 1.5-2.0 g/kg/day during recovery. Protein debt accumulates rapidly and correlates with adverse outcomes more strongly than energy deficit.(8)

The Role of Immunonutrition: An Update

Defining Immunonutrition

Immunonutrients are specific nutrients administered in pharmacological doses to modulate immune function, inflammation, and metabolic responses. The most studied agents include glutamine, omega-3 fatty acids (particularly eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] and docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]), arginine, and nucleotides.

Glutamine: From Promise to Caution

MYTH: Glutamine supplementation universally benefits critically ill patients and should be routinely added to nutrition regimens.

REALITY: Glutamine supplementation in critical illness has no proven mortality benefit and may cause harm in specific populations, particularly those with multiorgan failure.

Evidence Update

Glutamine, the most abundant amino acid in the body, becomes conditionally essential during stress, with plasma levels declining during critical illness. Early studies suggested benefits in burn patients, trauma, and surgical populations.

The REDOXS trial (2013), the largest glutamine study to date (n=1,223), randomized critically ill patients with multiorgan failure to high-dose intravenous glutamine, antioxidants, both, or placebo. The trial was stopped early for harm: glutamine supplementation increased 6-month mortality (32.4% vs 27.2%, p=0.05) with no benefit in secondary outcomes.(9)

A subsequent 2016 meta-analysis of 53 studies (n=4,671) found no mortality benefit from glutamine supplementation in critically ill adults and confirmed potential harm in patients with liver and renal dysfunction.(10)

Current Recommendations

2016 ASPEN/SCCM Guidelines recommend against routine intravenous glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients, particularly those with multiorgan failure (Grade B recommendation).(11)

Pearl 4: The Subgroup Nuance While high-dose parenteral glutamine appears harmful, enteral glutamine in specific populations (major burns >20% TBSA, trauma patients without organ failure) may still offer benefits. Consider enteral glutamine (0.3-0.5 g/kg/day) only in these select groups.(12)

Omega-3 Fatty Acids: Conditional Benefits

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) possess anti-inflammatory properties by competing with arachidonic acid metabolism, generating less inflammatory eicosanoids and producing specialized pro-resolving mediators (resolvins, protectins).

Evidence in ARDS

The OMEGA trial (2011) randomized 272 patients with acute lung injury to enteral supplementation with EPA+DHA+γ-linolenic acid versus control feeding. The study showed no benefit in 60-day mortality, ventilator-free days, or organ failure-free days, with trends toward harm in the intervention group.(13)

A 2019 Cochrane review of omega-3 supplementation in ARDS (14 RCTs, n=1,280) found no mortality benefit (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.68-1.30) and no improvement in ventilator-free days.(14)

Evidence in Other Populations

Conversely, in surgical patients, particularly those undergoing major elective operations, perioperative omega-3-enriched formulas have shown reduced infectious complications and hospital length of stay in multiple meta-analyses.(15)

Pearl 5: Timing and Patient Selection Matter The negative ARDS trials used omega-3 supplementation after critical illness was established. Perioperative administration (5-7 days pre-op when possible, continued post-op) in elective major surgery shows more consistent benefits. Once ARDS or severe sepsis is established, omega-3 supplementation is not beneficial.

Arginine: The Contextual Immunonutrient

Arginine is a precursor for nitric oxide synthesis and plays roles in T-cell function and wound healing. However, excessive nitric oxide production in sepsis can exacerbate vasodilation and worsen shock.

Consensus: Avoid arginine supplementation in critically ill septic patients due to theoretical concerns about worsening hypotension. Arginine-containing formulas are appropriate for elective surgical patients and trauma patients without severe sepsis.(11)

Practical Approach to Immunonutrition

Hack: The Risk Stratification Approach

High-risk elective surgical patients (pre-operative):

✓ Consider immune-enhancing formula (arginine + omega-3 + nucleotides)
Duration: 5-7 days pre-op, continue 5-7 days post-op

Trauma patients (without multiorgan failure):

✓ Consider enteral glutamine (0.3-0.5 g/kg/day)
✓ Standard enteral formula acceptable

Established sepsis/ARDS/multiorgan failure:

✗ Avoid glutamine supplementation
✗ Avoid omega-3 supplementation
✗ Avoid arginine supplementation
✓ Use standard high-protein enteral formulas

Oyster: "Immune-enhancing formulas" are commercially available premixed products containing combinations of arginine, glutamine, omega-3s, and nucleotides. These were developed based on single-nutrient studies but have not been validated as combination products in critically ill populations. Be cautious using these in unselected ICU patients.

Monitoring for Refeeding Syndrome in the High-Risk Patient

Understanding Refeeding Syndrome

MYTH: Refeeding syndrome is primarily about hypophosphatemia.

REALITY: Refeeding syndrome is a constellation of metabolic and clinical complications (electrolyte shifts, fluid overload, vitamin deficiencies, and organ dysfunction) resulting from reintroduction of nutrition after prolonged undernutrition or starvation.

Pathophysiology

During starvation, insulin levels decline, and metabolism shifts from carbohydrate to fat oxidation. Cellular electrolytes (phosphate, potassium, magnesium) are depleted but serum levels may appear normal due to extracellular shifts. Thiamine stores become depleted.

Upon refeeding, insulin secretion increases dramatically, driving glucose, phosphate, potassium, and magnesium intracellularly. This results in severe hypophosphatemia, hypokalemia, and hypomagnesemia. Thiamine, a cofactor in carbohydrate metabolism, becomes rapidly depleted as metabolic demands increase. Sodium and fluid retention occur due to insulin-mediated effects on renal tubules.

Clinical Consequences

Hypophosphatemia: Impaired ATP production → respiratory failure, cardiac dysfunction, rhabdomyolysis, seizures, altered mental status
Hypokalemia: Arrhythmias, muscle weakness
Hypomagnesemia: Arrhythmias, potentiation of hypocalcemia
Thiamine deficiency: Lactic acidosis, Wernicke's encephalopathy, cardiac failure
Fluid overload: Heart failure, pulmonary edema

High-Risk Patient Identification

The NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) criteria define high-risk patients as those with:(16)

One or more of:

BMI <16 kg/m²
Unintentional weight loss >15% in 3-6 months
Little or no nutritional intake for >10 days
Low baseline potassium, phosphate, or magnesium before feeding

Or two or more of:

BMI <18.5 kg/m²
Unintentional weight loss >10% in 3-6 months
Little or no nutritional intake for >5 days
History of alcohol abuse or drugs including insulin, chemotherapy, antacids, diuretics

Pearl 6: ICU-Specific Risk Factors In addition to NICE criteria, consider high risk in:

Prolonged NPO status pre-ICU admission (cancer surgery patients, bowel obstructions)
Chronic alcoholism
Anorexia nervosa
Prolonged courses of hypocaloric IV fluids only
Post-bariatric surgery complications
Chronic diuretic use with poor nutritional intake

Prevention Protocols

Pre-Feeding Assessment

Laboratory baseline (within 24 hours before initiating nutrition):

Phosphate, potassium, magnesium, calcium
Thiamine level if available (though therapy should not be delayed for results)
Glucose
Renal and hepatic function

Oyster: Don't wait for laboratory correction before starting nutrition in hemodynamically stable patients. Initiate feeding cautiously while simultaneously correcting deficiencies. Complete correction before feeding often delays nutrition unnecessarily and may not prevent refeeding syndrome.

Thiamine Supplementation

CRITICAL HACK: Administer thiamine BEFORE initiating carbohydrate-based nutrition in all high-risk patients.

Dose: Thiamine 100-300 mg IV daily for 3-5 days, then 100 mg IV/oral daily
Rationale: Prevents Wernicke's encephalopathy and lactic acidosis
Timing: Must precede or be concurrent with first carbohydrate load

Pearl 7: The "Banana Bag" is Insufficient Standard multivitamin preparations contain inadequate thiamine for refeeding prophylaxis (typically 100 mg). Prescribe thiamine separately at appropriate doses.

Electrolyte Repletion

Before initiating nutrition:

Phosphate: Repleted to >0.6 mmol/L (1.8 mg/dL)
Potassium: Repleted to >3.5 mEq/L
Magnesium: Repleted to >0.75 mmol/L (1.8 mg/dL)

Aggressive repletion protocols:

May require IV phosphate replacement in multiple doses
Anticipate ongoing losses; serial monitoring essential

Starting Nutrition Conservatively

The "Start Low, Go Slow" Protocol:

High-risk patients:

Start at 25% of calculated energy requirements (approximately 10-15 kcal/kg/day)
Advance by 25% increments every 24-48 hours as tolerated
Monitor electrolytes every 6-12 hours for first 48 hours

Very high-risk patients (BMI <14, >14 days without nutrition):

Start at 10% of requirements (5-10 kcal/kg/day)
Even slower advancement

Protein: Can be less restricted; aim for 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day even during cautious caloric introduction

Monitoring During Refeeding

Laboratory monitoring schedule:

Days 1-3 (daily or twice daily):

Phosphate, potassium, magnesium
Glucose
Fluid balance

Days 4-7 (daily):

Phosphate, potassium, magnesium
Consider cardiac monitoring if severe electrolyte abnormalities

Pearl 8: Phosphate is the Sentinel Electrolyte Hypophosphatemia typically manifests 12-72 hours after refeeding initiation and is often the first and most severe abnormality. A declining phosphate trend (even if still in "normal" range) should trigger heightened vigilance and potential slowing of nutrition advancement.

Clinical monitoring:

Fluid status (weight, fluid balance, signs of edema/overload)
Respiratory function (work of breathing, ventilator settings if applicable)
Cardiac function (telemetry, echocardiography if concerning)
Neurological status (confusion, weakness may indicate electrolyte abnormalities or Wernicke's)

Management of Established Refeeding Syndrome

If refeeding syndrome develops despite precautions:

Reduce or temporarily hold nutrition (4-12 hours depending on severity)
Aggressive electrolyte repletion:
- Phosphate: May require up to 0.5-1.0 mmol/kg/day IV in divided doses
- Potassium: Guided by serum levels and ECG changes
- Magnesium: Often requires several grams IV daily
Thiamine supplementation: Escalate to 300-500 mg IV TID if Wernicke's suspected
Fluid management: Strict input/output monitoring; consider diuresis if fluid overload
Restart nutrition: Once electrolytes stabilized, restart at even lower rate

Hack: Phosphate Repletion Calculations For severe hypophosphatemia (<0.32 mmol/L or <1.0 mg/dL):

Patients >60 kg: Give 40-80 mmol IV over 6-12 hours
Patients <60 kg: Give 0.6-1.0 mmol/kg IV over 6-12 hours
Recheck phosphate 6 hours after completion; often requires repeated dosing

Oyster: Overzealous phosphate replacement can cause hypocalcemia. Monitor calcium and treat symptomatic hypocalcemia with calcium supplementation. Avoid administering calcium and phosphate simultaneously in IV lines (precipitation risk).

Integrative Approach: Putting It All Together

Week 1 Nutrition Strategy for Typical ICU Patient

Day 1-2: Hemodynamic stabilization; trophic EN (10-20 mL/hr) Day 3-7: Permissive underfeeding (50-70% energy target, 1.2-1.5 g/kg protein) Day 7-10: Transition to full feeding as patient stabilizes

Special Considerations:

Screen for refeeding risk at admission
No routine immunonutrition supplementation in established sepsis/ARDS
Consider IC when available
Protein prioritization throughout

Decision Algorithm for Immunonutrition

Patient Population?
│
├─ Pre-op high-risk surgery → Immune-enhancing formula (arginine + omega-3)
│
├─ Trauma (no organ failure) → Consider enteral glutamine
│
├─ Severe sepsis/ARDS/MOF → Standard high-protein formula (NO immunonutrition)
│
└─ Burns >20% TBSA → Consider enteral glutamine

Refeeding Risk Mitigation Checklist

☐ Risk assessment completed (NICE criteria + ICU factors)
☐ Baseline electrolytes obtained
☐ Thiamine 100-300 mg IV ordered BEFORE feeding
☐ Electrolytes repleted to target ranges
☐ Conservative starting rate calculated (10-15 kcal/kg/day for high-risk)
☐ Monitoring schedule established (labs q6-12h × 48h)
☐ Advancement protocol defined

Conclusion

Contemporary critical care nutrition requires clinicians to abandon outdated dogmas and embrace nuanced, evidence-based approaches. Permissive underfeeding during acute illness respects the metabolic reality of critical illness while avoiding complications of overfeeding. The immunonutrition story teaches us that "more is not always better" and context matters profoundly—the same intervention may benefit surgical patients but harm those with established multiorgan failure. Refeeding syndrome, though preventable, demands systematic risk assessment, cautious reintroduction of nutrition, and vigilant monitoring.

The art of ICU nutrition lies in recognizing that critically ill patients traverse distinct metabolic phases—acute catabolic stress, stabilization, and anabolic recovery—each requiring tailored nutritional strategies. By integrating these principles with individualized patient assessment, critical care practitioners can optimize nutrition therapy as a therapeutic intervention rather than mere supportive care.

Key Takeaways

Permissive underfeeding (40-70% of target) in the acute phase (days 1-7) is safe and potentially beneficial
Protein should not be restricted even during permissive underfeeding; target 1.2-2.0 g/kg/day
Avoid routine immunonutrition (glutamine, omega-3s) in established sepsis and ARDS
Consider immune-enhancing formulas only in perioperative high-risk surgical patients
Screen all ICU admissions for refeeding risk using validated criteria
Always administer thiamine BEFORE starting nutrition in high-risk patients
"Start low, go slow" in refeeding—initial rate of 10-15 kcal/kg/day for high-risk patients
Monitor phosphate as the sentinel electrolyte for refeeding syndrome

References

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.
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.
Hermans G, Casaer MP, Clerckx B, et al. Effect of tolerating macronutrient deficit on the development of intensive-care unit acquired weakness: a subanalysis of the EPaNIC trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1(8):621-629.
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.
Marik PE, Hooper MH. Normocaloric versus hypocaloric feeding on the outcomes of ICU patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(3):316-323.
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.
Choban P, Dickerson R, Malone A, et al. A.S.P.E.N. Clinical Guidelines: nutrition support of hospitalized adult patients with obesity. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2013;37(6):714-744.
Weijs PJ, Looijaard WG, Beishuizen A, et al. Early high protein intake is associated with low mortality and energy overfeeding with high mortality in non-septic mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2014;18(6):701.
Heyland D, Muscedere J, Wischmeyer PE, et al. A randomized trial of glutamine and antioxidants in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(16):1489-1497.
Wischmeyer PE, Dhaliwal R, McCall M, et al. Parenteral glutamine supplementation in critical illness: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2014;18(2):R76.
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.
Wischmeyer PE, Dhaliwal R, McCall M, et al. The role of glutamine in critical illness: meta-analysis and systematic review of the evidence. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(10):2292-2300.
Rice TW, Wheeler AP, Thompson BT, et al. Enteral omega-3 fatty acid, gamma-linolenic acid, and antioxidant supplementation in acute lung injury. JAMA. 2011;306(14):1574-1581.
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.
Manzanares W, Langlois PL, Dhaliwal R, et al. Intravenous fish oil lipid emulsions in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2015;19:167.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nutrition support for adults: oral nutrition support, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition. NICE Clinical Guideline 32. 2017.

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Acknowledgments: The author thanks the critical care nutrition teams whose clinical questions and challenges inspired this review.

For correspondence and continuing education resources on critical care nutrition, readers are encouraged to consult the ASPEN and ESPEN websites and guidelines, which are regularly updated as new evidence emerges.

Thursday, November 6, 2025