Chapter 11. Nutrition in the Critically Ill

Daren K. Heyland; Steve A. McClave

Key Points

Nutrients and gastrointestinal structure and function are linked to the pathophysiology of infection, organ dysfunction, and survival in critically ill patients.
Nutrition support may both positively and negatively influence the morbidity and mortality of critically ill patients.
When considering nutrition support in critically ill patients, enteral nutrition (EN) should be used in preference to parenteral nutrition (PN).
Strategies to optimize delivery of EN (e.g., starting EN early, use of a feeding protocol with a high threshold of gastric residual volume, use of prokinetic agents, and use of small bowel feeding) and minimize the risks of EN (e.g., elevation of the head of the bed) should be considered.
When initiating EN, PN should not be used in combination with it.
For most patient populations in critical care in whom EN is not possible or feasible, standard therapy (IV fluid resuscitation without artificial nutrition support) is preferable to PN for the first 7 to 10 days.
When PN is indicated, strategies that maximize the benefit (e.g., supplementing with glutamine) and minimize the risks of PN (e.g., hypocaloric dose, withholding lipids, continued use of EN, and the use of intensive insulin therapy to achieve tight glycemic control) should be considered.

Nutrition support is considered an integral component of standard supportive care in the critically ill patient. In humans, during stress associated with trauma, sepsis, or other critical illness, there is high consumption of various nutrients by the gastrointestinal tract, immune cells, kidneys, and other organs. Requirements for and losses of these nutrients may outstrip synthetic capacity, leading to an erosion of body stores and depletion of proteins and other key nutrients. Historically, in an attempt to mitigate such deficiencies and preserve lean body mass, traditional nutrition (protein, calories, vitamins, etc) has been provided to critically ill patients. The relative merits of nutrition were evaluated in the context of protein-calorie economy (weight gain, nitrogen balance, muscle mass and function, etc). In this chapter we take a broader view of the benefits and risks of nutrition support. The benefits of nutrition support in general include improved wound healing, a decreased catabolic response to injury, enhanced immune system function, improved GI structure and function, and improved clinical outcomes, including a reduction in complication rates and length of stay with accompanying cost savings.1 Independent of their effects on nutritional status of the patients, key nutrients such as glutamine, arginine, and omega-3 fatty acids may also have favorable direct effects on organ function and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. Thus nutrition support may be considered a specific therapeutic intervention by which the critically ill patient's disease course may be altered, leading to a more favorable outcome.

There is considerable evidence linking nutrition (and lack thereof) and GI function to the pathogenesis of infection and organ failure in critical illness.2 Failure to obtain enteral access and to provide nutrients via the enteral route results in a proinflammatory state mediated by macrophages and monocytes. Oxidative stress is increased, severity of illness is exacerbated, and the likelihood of infectious morbidity, multiorgan failure, and prolonged length of stay is increased.3–5 In contrast, the provision of enteral nutrition results in higher levels of secretory IgA in biliary tract secretions, greater preservation of gut-associated lymphoid tissue, less bacterial translocation, and greater preservation of upper respiratory tract immunity, all of which translates into improved clinical outcomes for critically ill patients.1

However, providing nutrients and nutrition support is not without adverse effects or risks. Acquired infection, particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), is a major problem for critically ill patients, resulting in increased morbidity, mortality, and health care costs.6,7 Gastric atony and the use of intragastric enteral feeds appear to increase the risk of gastric colonization and subsequent pneumonia.8,9 Gastric colonization plays a significant role in the contamination of tracheal secretions and in the development of nosocomial pneumonia via a mechanism of gastroesophageal regurgitation and pulmonary microaspiration.10 Parenteral nutrition has been associated with gut mucosal atrophy, overfeeding, hyperglycemia, adverse effects on immune function, an increased risk of infectious complications, and increased mortality in critically ill patients.11 While providing supplemental glutamine to seriously stressed critically ill patients may increase their chances of survival,12 depending on the circumstances, providing arginine to the same patients may increase their mortality.13 Therefore, nutrition support must be viewed as a double-edged sword, and strategies that maximize the benefits of nutrition support while minimizing the associated risks need to be considered in formulating clinical recommendations.

In developing such recommendations, the patient populations to which these recommendations will be applied must also be considered. Studies of nutrition support in non–critically ill patient populations may not be generalizable to critically ill patients. For example, the treatment effect of PN in elective surgery patients is significantly different than the treatment effect of PN in critically ill patients.11

Even within subpopulations of critically ill patients, differences in outcome between the two routes of providing nutrition support are more likely to be seen with greater severity of illness. For example, the correlation between the importance of maintaining gut integrity and greater disease severity was demonstrated by a study evaluating septic complications in trauma patients, randomized at the time of surgery, to PN or to enteral tube feeding.14 In patients with high Abdominal Trauma Index (ATI) scores (>24), the incidence of septic complications was greater in the PN group than the group on enteral tube feeding (47.6% vs. 11.1%, p <0.05). For those patients with moderate illness and lower ATI scores (<24), there was no significant difference in the incidence of septic complications between the parenteral and enteral groups (29.2% vs. 20.8%, p = NS).14 Furthermore, in studies of EN versus PN in acute pancreatitis, faster resolution of the inflammatory response and significant differences in clinical outcomes (reduced septic morbidity and overall complications in the EN group) were seen in studies in which there were more patients with severe pancreatitis compared to studies with a lower proportion of patients with severe pancreatitis.15–17

In this chapter, we will discuss the relationships among nutrition, GI structure and function, immune function, and outcomes in critical illness. Upon this theoretical foundation, we will propose recommendations favoring the use of enteral nutrition over parenteral nutrition. Whereas PN may be life-sustaining in patients with a disrupted GI tract, PN has only a minor role in the ICU patient population with an intact GI tract. In most patient populations in the critical care setting when EN is not feasible, standard therapy (IV fluid resuscitation without artificial nutritional support) is actually preferable to PN for the first 7 to 10 days. Regardless of the route of nutrition support, we will suggest strategies that maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of both PN and EN.

Relationship of the Gastrointestinal Tract, Immune System, and Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury

Listen

The GI tract is the largest immune organ in the body, containing 65% of immune tissue overall and up to 80% of the immunoglobulin-producing tissues of the body.4,5 In the fed state, the normal motility, villous microanatomy, rich blood supply, and epithelial intercellular tight junctions contribute to the overall integrity and barrier function of the GI tract. In response to luminal nutrients, propulsive contractions assist in controlling the concentration of luminal bacteria and the secretion of bile salts, mucus glycoproteins, and secretory IgA retard bacterial adhesion to gut epithelial cells and subsequent translocation.18,19 The healthy gut acts as an important antigen-sensing organ, in which bacterial antigen is sampled and processed by the M cells, ultimately stimulating the release and maturation of a population of pluripotential stem cells or naíve CD4 helper T lymphocytes.20,21 These cells will migrate out from the Peyer patches, through the mesenteric lymph nodes and thoracic duct, and into the systemic circulation as a mature line of B- and T-cell lymphocytes. A proportion of these cells generated in the maturation of the pluripotential stem cells migrate out as mucosal-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) to distant sites such as the lungs, genitourinary tract, breast, and lacrimal glands.18–21 Those that return to the enteric mucosa are known as gut-associated lymphoid tissue (GALT).19–21 In some situations, instead of seeing an increase in aspiration pneumonia in response to enteral feeding of critically ill patients, clinicians may instead see a reduced incidence of pneumonia14 due to maintenance of MALT in the lung by the trophic effects of luminal nutrients on the intestinal immune components.19–21

In a situation of even brief disuse, gut integrity may deteriorate. In contrast to the fed state, fasting leads to villous atrophy, diminished blood flow, and loss of intercellular tight junctions. This opens paracellular channels, allowing translocation of bacteria or other gut-derived factors such as endotoxin.18 Without nutrient-induced stimulation of secretory IgA and bile salts, bacteria are more easily able to adhere to epithelial cells, promoting even greater translocation of bacteria and entry of their secretory products (e.g., endotoxin).18 Lack of enteral nutrients may result in a reduction in the mass of GALT and antigen-processing and buildup of MALT at distant sites.

The most important aspect of gut disuse may be the diminished blood supply to the gut, which predisposes to regional ischemia/reperfusion injury.22 The generation of superoxide radicals in response to ischemia/reperfusion may promote mucosal macrophage activation.22,23 Macrophages, primed and activated at the level of the gut, may migrate to distant sites such as the liver, lung, and kidney. In such sites they may mediate tissue injury, resulting in the generation of oxidative species.23 Macrophage activation is a key step linking gut functional compromise with more systemic factors that adversely affect patient outcome.23,24 Activated macrophages also initiate the arachidonic acid cascade. Generation of prostaglandin E2 suppresses delayed hypersensitivity reaction, generates superoxide radicals, and leads to an increased susceptibility to sepsis. Generation of leukotriene B4 leads to chemotaxis and edema and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). Thromboxane A2, another product of this cascade, leads to vasoconstriction and thrombosis. This event, in turn, promotes physiologic shunts and multiple organ failure.23,25

The overall tone of the systemic immune response may be modulated at the level of the gut. The dendritic macrophage cells act as antigen-presenting cells (APCs), which release cytokines and activate the naíve CD4 T cells (Th0). The specific cytokines that are generated ultimately affect the differentiation pathway of these lymphocytes26 (Fig. 11-1). With gut disuse and fasting, contractility is decreased, which promotes bacterial overgrowth. Bacteria or viruses tend to generate a Th1 inflammatory response (while chronic parasitic infections are more likely to generate Th2 responses).27 As bacterial antigen passes through M cells across the epithelium of the intestine, an initial response is elicited from the macrophages and dendritic cells,26,28 (Fig. 11-2) releasing interleukin-12 (IL-12) and stimulating the naíve T cells to differentiate into the Th1 subset. This Th1 response represents cellular immunity, and results in the further release of other inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-2 (IL-2), interferon-γ (IFN-γ), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α). Th1 responses are associated with increased inflammation and are essential for a successful defense against infections. However, uncontrolled Th1 responses can result in self-injury. Feeding, on the other hand, may generate a different cytokine response and thus a different immune environment. Feeding is associated with oral tolerance, which represents a Th3 subset and is generated in the presence of interleukin-4 (IL-4), IL-10, and transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), which tend to have immunosuppressive effects.26 This immune environment allows ingestion of protein antigen from food without eliciting an inflammatory response. The production of IL-4 also stimulates a change in naíve T cells (Th0) into the Th2 subset.26 Differentiation into Th2 lymphocytes represents humoral immunity, and causes further release of IL-4, interleukin-6 (IL-6), and interleukin-10 (IL-10). The Th2 response tends to curb or check the Th1 inflammatory response. Th2 responses are essential to prevent self-injury caused by inflammation. However, excessive regulation of inflammatory responses by Th2 cytokines can lead to increased immune suppression. This may cause anergy to skin test antigens, impaired antibody production, and diminished phagocytosis, rendering patients susceptible to additional infectious morbidity and mortality.29

Figure 11–1.

View Full Size||Download Slide (.ppt)

Antigen processing immune function by the gut.

Figure 11–2.

View Full Size||Download Slide (.ppt)

Pattern of immune response involving CD4 helper T cells.

These immune responses usually occur simultaneously, in effect competing with each other to set the overall immune environment, and may be responsible for the pattern of clinical response seen in critical illness. Initially the Th1 inflammatory response predominates, the intensity of which is determined in part by the injury itself. Almost immediately, the compensatory Th2 response is stimulated. At the point at which this compensatory Th2 response predominates over the initial Th1 response, the patient may pass into a period of relative immune suppression, characterized by anergy, hyporesponsiveness of T lymphocytes, and a diminished overall immune responsiveness.1 Theoretically, any feeding by the enteral route early in the patient's disease process helps maintain gut integrity, promote motility, and minimize bacterial overgrowth in the small bowel, all of which may diminish the early gut-derived Th1 inflammatory response. As the patient progresses into the period of moderate immunosuppression, they are particularly at risk for late complications arising from aspiration or bacterial translocation, such as multiorgan failure and sepsis.30 It is during this period of moderate immunosuppression that immune-enhancing formulas may have their greatest role in supporting the immune response, improving bactericidal activity, and reducing deleterious outcomes.

The Importance of Maintaining Gastrointestinal Integrity

Listen

Loss of gut structural integrity has been documented in humans, but it probably occurs as a late complication only with protracted disuse. A prospective study evaluating the effects of enteral feeding versus PN in patients with pancreatitis compared these patients against a control group without pancreatitis.31 A segment of jejunum was resected at surgery to evaluate the effect of enteral feeding on mucosal integrity and architecture.31 The control group maintained on enteral feeding had essentially normal villi. Pancreatitis was associated with villous atrophy in the experimental arm, but the effect was minimized in the enteral nutrition group. Those patients with pancreatitis placed on PN had the greatest villous atrophy. Longer periods of gut disuse completely transformed the mucosal architecture, resulting in a flattened featureless surface.31

Much more clinically important is the loss of functional integrity, which in some patients occurs over a very short period of time. With loss of functional integrity, the tight junctions between the intestinal epithelial cells open up, the gut becomes “leaky,” and the patient experiences systemic bacterial challenge (through release of endotoxin and other gut-derived factors) and an exaggerated stress response with increased severity of disease.18 In a prospective randomized trial, Windsor and colleagues showed that patients with pancreatitis maintained on enteral tube feeding had no change in IgM antibodies to endotoxin over a week of enteral feeding.16 In contrast, controls placed on PN and gut disuse demonstrated a significant increase in IgM antibodies to endotoxin of 25% in response to a week of parenteral feeding (p <0.05).16 In a second study, increased gut permeability (measured by enteric absorption and urinary excretion of polyethylene glycol) and systemic endotoxemia correlated significantly with greater disease severity in patients with acute pancreatitis.32 In a prospective randomized trial, normal healthy volunteers randomized to PN and gut disuse for 7 days demonstrated an exaggerated stress response to a standard IV challenge of E. coli endotoxin, as evidenced by higher glucagon, epinephrine, tumor necrosis factor, and C-reactive protein levels and greater muscle catabolism compared to a study group receiving a week of enteral feeding.33 In two studies in patients with acute pancreatitis, significantly faster resolution of the SIRS response and “resolution of the disease process” (resolution of pain, decreasing amylase, and successful advancement to oral diet) was seen in patients randomized to EN compared to those placed on PN.16,34

Consistent with the theoretical evidence presented, there are 13 studies of critically ill patients with surgery, trauma, and medical illnesses, that evaluated the benefits of EN compared to PN. Compared to PN, EN was associated with a significant reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.61; 95% confidence intervals [CIs] 0.44, 0.84; p = 0.003).35 No significant differences were seen in mortality between groups. Thus in general, by feeding via the enteral route, we can expect to reduce the infectious complications associated with nutrition support in critically ill patients without adversely affecting survival.

Readiness for Enteral Nutrition

At the bedside, clinicians fail to recognize the relationship between gut structure and function and adverse patient outcome, primarily because there is significant delay in the development of complications that arise from poor management decisions related to enteral therapy. If mistakes are made with oxygen delivery, hypoxemia ensues immediately and the patient may deteriorate within minutes. If mistakes are made with volume resuscitation, there is a degree of delay, and problems arising from decreased vascular volume, hypoperfusion, and increasing azotemia may not develop for 12 to 24 hours. If no effort is made to maintain gut integrity, the complications that arise as a result may not develop for 3 to 5 days. At that point, when nosocomial infections occur or organs begin to fail, the clinician does not connect the development of these complications with management decisions made 5 days before with regard to enteral nutrition. In fact, only in prospective randomized trials can it be determined that had gut integrity been maintained, there might have been a decrease in the number of nosocomial infections, the number of organs failing, and the overall length of stay in the ICU prior to discharge.

Initial Bedside Evaluation

Listen

The initial nutritional assessment that leads to the initiation of enteral tube feedings differs from the sequential monitoring that takes place as the patient continues to receive feeding. Low visceral proteins (such as albumin, transferrin, and prealbumin) on initial evaluation provide valuable prognostic information, accurately identifying those patients with the greatest degree of physiologic stress, severity of illness, and highest mortality.36 Weight as percentage of ideal body weight, usual body weight, or as degree of recent weight lost, identify patients with possible underlying malnutrition that was present prior to the event causing the current hospital admission.36 Determining risk for deterioration in nutrition status on initial evaluation may be facilitated by use of current scoring systems designed for certain patient populations. An Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score ≥10 in critically ill patients, an ATI score ≥24 in trauma patients, and presence of ≥3 Ranson criteria in patients with pancreatitis identify those patients with severe degrees of critical illness who are at high risk for rapid deterioration in nutritional status, with low likelihood for early advancement to oral diet, and in greatest need for aggressive enteral nutritional support.14,37–39

Determination of caloric requirements is very important on the initial nutritional evaluation, helping to set the goal (number of required calories) of nutritional support. Caloric requirements are best determined using simple equations (25 to 30 kcal/kg per day) or by specific measurement via indirect calorimetry. A dose-response effect in which the provision of 55% to 60% of the required number of calories over the first 48 to 72 hours to achieve a therapeutic effect has been suggested by several studies.40–43 In a prospective study, burn patients who consumed an average of 64% of their goal calories showed no increased gut permeability and remained uninfected throughout their hospital course. In contrast, those who became infected consumed an average of only 40% of their goal calories, and showed evidence of significantly increased gut permeability.40 Therefore, prolonged use of “trickle or trophic feeds,” providing 10 to 30 mL/h, may be insufficient to adequately maintain gut integrity and translate into improved clinical outcomes.

Achieving Access

Unfortunately, obtaining enteral access early in the course of the critical illness may be very difficult. With greater severity of illness, patients become more prone to ileus with gastroparesis, high residual volumes, and intolerance of gastric feeds. Early on, the hypermetabolic response, SIRS, high doses of narcotic analgesics, and electrolyte abnormalities may potentiate gastroparesis. Compounding the problem is the fact that disuse of the gut reduces the secretion of prokinetic hormones such as gastrin, bombesin, and motilin.18,19

The ability to obtain enteral access may be vital to the success of nutritional support in the critically ill patient. Each institution needs specialists who have the skills to place tubes at the appropriate levels of the GI tract, with techniques that can usually be done at the bedside with minimal or no sedation. A number of techniques have been described for blind postpyloric placement at the bedside, which in the hands of a dedicated nurse, dietitian, or intensivist should be successful in >85% of cases.44 In cases in which blind bedside placement is unsuccessful or deeper jejunal placement is required (such as in patients with severe acute pancreatitis), enteral access to the small bowel may require endoscopic or fluoroscopic placement. For these latter patients, transport out of the ICU should be avoided to prevent an increased risk of mishaps (e.g., cardiopulmonary arrest, new dysrhythmias, or loss of central IV line access) and pulmonary aspiration.45–47

Assessing Tolerance

Physical examination by the clinical nutritionist may be the most important element of monitoring the patient on enteral tube feeding. Abnormalities on physical exam usually reflect segmental abnormalities in contractility of the GI tract. Bloating, abdominal distention, hyperresonance, and increased residual volumes may signify delayed gastric emptying. In patients placed on nasogastric drainage, output of >1200 mL/d may indicate relative gastroparesis. Contractility of the colon may be assessed by passage of stool and gas. The presence of bowel sounds is a poor indicator of contractility in the small bowel, as evidenced by the fact that nasogastric suction will reduce its detection. Studies performed on the postoperative return of bowel function or contractility have provided valuable findings for the clinician. Invariably, contractility in the stomach stops initially, followed next by colonic contractility. Small bowel function or contractility appears to be retained the longest.48 In most critically ill patients (particularly patients with trauma), who on baseline evaluation have grossly abnormal physical exams, tolerance to enteral tube feeding may be defined by slight decreases in abdominal distention and abdominal discomfort in the absence of high gastric residual volumes, metabolic acidosis, third-spacing of fluids, or a worsening clinical condition. These findings on serial physical examinations determine whether the position of the feeding tube needs to be changed (i.e., placing the tip of the tube lower down in the GI tract at or below the ligament of Treitz), whether a tube with simultaneous aspirating and feeding capabilities needs to be added, or whether the feeds need to be temporarily discontinued.

Strategies to Maximize the Benefits and Minimize the Risks of Enteral Nutrition

Listen

Timing of Enteral Nutrition

While enteral feeding is the preferred route of nutrient administration, how soon it should be started after an acute injury or insult is not clear. In critically ill patients, there were eight randomized controlled trials comparing early EN (i.e., that started within 24 to 48 hours of admission to the ICU) to some form of delayed nutrient intake (i.e., delayed EN or oral diet).49 When results from these studies were aggregated, early EN was associated with a trend towards a reduction in mortality (RR 0.52; 95% CIs 0.25, 1.08; p = 0.08) when compared to delayed nutrient intake. Three studies reported infectious complications.50–52 When these were aggregated, early EN was associated with a trend towards a reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.66; 95% CIs 0.36, 1.22; p = 0.19) when compared to delayed nutrient intake. No differences in length of stay were observed between groups. All seven studies that reported nutritional end points showed a significant improvement in the groups receiving early EN (e.g., improvements in calorie intake, protein intake, percentage of goal achieved, and better nitrogen balance achieved). There were no differences in other complications between the groups.

Although the results lack statistical significance, they do suggest a large improvement in clinical outcome and a significant increase in nutrient delivery associated with early enteral feeding. However, before endorsing the concept of early enteral feeding, one must consider the potential risks of such a strategy. Two recent nonrandomized studies suggest that early enteral feeds delivered into the stomach may be associated with increased complications.53,54 In contrast, Taylor and colleagues combined an aggressive early feeding protocol with the use of small bowel feedings and documented that head-injured patients fed aggressively, compared to standard (slower) provision of EN, not only had better nutritional status, but also had fewer complications and a more rapid recovery from their illness.42

Synthesizing these discordant results, it would seem that early EN may be associated with improved clinical outcomes when done in such a way that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks (see below). Furthermore, it should be noted that the goal of early EN, while critically ill patients are still early in the acute phase of their illness, is to provide enough critical nutrients to the gut to modulate the disease process and enhance gut barrier structure and function, not to meet their caloric requirements as soon as possible. Thus for some patients with evidence of inadequate oxygen delivery, specific nutrients (e.g., glutamine and antioxidants) may be required in the first few days of critical illness. If patients are still on high-dose inotropes to maintain adequate blood pressure, the risk of providing EN may outweigh the benefits, and EN should be held until patients are weaning off pressor agents. As the patient enters the more stable, chronic phase of their illness (after 7 to 10 days), preserving lean body mass, stimulating protein synthesis, and minimizing nutritional deficits, rather than maintaining GI structure and function, become the primary goals.

Reducing Risk of Aspiration

It is important on initial evaluation to assess the patient's risk for aspiration on EN. Aspiration may occur from the antegrade passage of contaminated oropharyngeal secretions or the retrograde passage of contaminated gastric contents into the larynx. Regurgitation occurs more frequently than aspiration.55 A number of risk factors have been identified that increase risk of aspiration in the ICU.56 While it is difficult to quantify or stratify degree of risk among these factors, a simple categorization differentiates major risk factors for which change in management strategy may be needed, versus additional minor risk factors that may not warrant specific change in therapeutic course. Major risk factors include documented previous episode of aspiration, decreased level of consciousness (including sedation or increased intracranial pressure), neuromuscular disease, structural abnormalities of the aerodigestive tract, need for endotracheal intubation, overt vomiting or regurgitation, need for prolonged supine position, and persistently high gastric residual volumes.56Additional risk factors include presence of a nasoenteric tube, noncontinuous or bolus intermittent feeding, abdominal/thoracic surgery or trauma, delayed gastric emptying, poor oral care, advanced age, inadequate nursing staff, large bore feeding tube, malpositioned enteral tube (back into the esophagus), or transport out of the ICU.1,56 Strategies to prevent aspiration in patients receiving nutrition support who have significant risk factors, as outlined below, should be utilized to minimize the risks associated with EN in this setting.

Role of Small Bowel Feeding

A number of strategies may be employed to maximize the delivery of EN while minimizing the risks of gastric colonization, gastroesophageal regurgitation, and pulmonary aspiration (Table 11-1). By delivering enteral feeds into the small bowel, beyond the pylorus, the frequency of regurgitation and aspiration, as well as the risk of pneumonia, is decreased while at the same time nutrient delivery is maximized.57 There are seven randomized trials that evaluated the effect of route of feeding on rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP).58 When these results were aggregated, there was a significant reduction in VAP associated with small bowel feedings (RR 0.76; 95% CIs 0.59, 0.99) compared to gastric feeding. Therefore, the converse is also true. In some patients intragastric feeding may be associated with inadequate delivery of nutrition, increased regurgitation, pulmonary aspiration, and pneumonia, particularly if patients are cared for in the supine position.

Table 11–1. Summary of Strategies to Optimize the Benefits and Minimize the Risks of Enteral Nutrition and Total Parenteral Nutrition

View Table||Download (.pdf)

Table 11–1. Summary of Strategies to Optimize the Benefits and Minimize the Risks of Enteral Nutrition and Total Parenteral Nutrition

Enteral Nutrition

Total Parenteral Nutrition

Initiate early, within 24–48 hours of admission

Hypocaloric dose

Use small bowel feedings

Do not use lipids for short term use (<10 days)

Elevate head of the bed

Tight control of blood sugars

Use motility agents

Supplement with glutamine

Use feeding protocol that enables consistent evaluation of gastric residual volumes and specifies when feeds should be interrupted

Continue to trickle concentrated amounts of enteral nutrition if able

Use concentrated feeding formulae in cases of intolerance

Consider formulae with immune additives

The clinical implications of these findings are influenced by the inherent difficulties in obtaining small bowel access. Given that some patients will tolerate intragastric feeds, it seems more prudent to reserve small bowel feeds for patients at high risk for intolerance to EN (due to use of inotropes, continuous infusion of sedatives, paralytic agents, high gastric residual volumes, or patients with high nasogastric drainage) or at high risk for regurgitation and aspiration (nursed in prolonged supine position).

Body Position

While several studies document that elevation of the head of the bed is associated with less regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration, only one randomized controlled trial compared the frequency of pneumonia in critically ill patients assigned to semirecumbent or supine position.59 Drakulovic and colleagues demonstrated that providing EN into the stomach in patients kept in the supine position was associated with a much higher risk of pneumonia compared to feeding patients with the head of the bed elevated to 45° (23% vs. 5%, p <0.05). Thus, a simple maneuver (i.e., elevating the head of the bed to 30° to 45°) can reduce the risks associated with enteral feedings.

Motility Agents

Gastrointestinal prokinetic agents improve gastric emptying, improve tolerance to enteral nutrition, reduce gastroesophageal reflux and pulmonary aspiration, and therefore may have the potential to improve outcomes in critically ill patients.60 While no study has demonstrated an impact from use of these agents on clinical outcomes, their low probability of harm and favorable feasibility and cost considerations warrant their use as a strategy to optimize nutritional intake and minimize regurgitation. Since cisapride is no longer available and due to the concerns of bacterial resistance with the use of erythromycin, metoclopramide is probably the drug of choice. It can be prescribed with the initiation of enteral feeds or reserved for patients who experience persistently high gastric residuals. It can be discontinued after four doses if there is no benefit observed, or after tolerance to EN is no longer a problem clinically. Reducing narcotic dosages and potentially reversing their effect at the level of the gut by infusing naloxone through the feeding tube, and switching from bolus intermittent feeds to continuous infusion may also be effective in improving gastric function and tolerance to EN, while reducing risk of aspiration.56 Methods not recommended solely to reduce risk of aspiration include switching to PN, adding acid to the enteral formula, switching from a large bore to a small bore nasoenteric tube, or converting a nasogastric tube to a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube.56

Feeding Protocols

Several observational studies document that EN is frequently interrupted for high gastric residual volumes, procedures, nausea and vomiting, and other miscellaneous reasons.61 Over the duration of ICU stay, this may result in inadequate delivery of EN to a critically ill patient and the associated complications of inadequate nutrition. Nurse-directed feeding protocols or algorithms have been shown to increase the amount of EN delivered on a daily basis.62 Instituting a feeding protocol in ICUs that provides specific instructions on the patient's management related to EN to the bedside nurse has the potential to improve nutrient delivery and decrease complications.

Role of Immune Stimulants and Antioxidants

An additional strategy to maximize the benefits of enteral nutrition is to consider using products supplemented with specific nutrients that modulate the immune system, facilitate wound healing, and reduce oxidative stress. Enteral formulas developed to such an extent contain selected substrates such as glutamine, arginine, and omega-3 fatty acids, as well as selenium, vitamins E, C, and A, and beta-carotene in supraphysiologic concentrations. Unfortunately, with the possible exception of glutamine, the nutrients by themselves have not been adequately studied in critically ill patients, so their individual efficacy remains unknown. Nevertheless, these nutrients have been combined together and marketed as an immune-enhancing diet. We use the term immunonutrition as a general term to describe all these enteral products, but attempt to make summary recommendations based on the specific nutrients by themselves.

Arginine

Supplementing arginine in the diet has a variety of biologic effects on the host63,64 (Fig. 11-3). L-arginine is an active secretagogue that stimulates the release of growth hormone, insulin growth factor, and insulin, all of which may stimulate protein synthesis and promote wound healing. Conversion of arginine to ornithine by arginase provides two further functions. This pathway enables shuttling of nitrogen to urea, and ornithine is utilized in polyamine synthesis (which is involved in deposition of hydroxyproline, collagen, and the laying down of connective tissue to heal wounds). Arginine has also been shown to have significant immunostimulatory effects. Arginine has a trophic effect on the thymus gland that promotes the production and maturation of T lymphocytes. In the nitric oxide synthase pathway, the precursor arginine may contribute to improved bacterial killing.63

Figure 11–3.

View Full Size||Download Slide (.ppt)

Arginine metabolic pathways.

Of interest is the fact that the arginase pathway is driven by a Th2 cytokine profile, mediated by further release of IL-4, IL-10 and TGF-β.64 The Th2 cytokine profile has the effect of reducing the overall inflammatory immune response. In contrast, the nitric oxide synthase pathway is mediated by a Th1 cytokine profile, and is perpetuated by further release of IL-1, TNF, and IFN-γ.64 This pathway has the capability of promoting the inflammatory response and inducing the formation of nitric oxide. Increased levels of nitric oxide may exert a negative inotropic and chronotropic effect on the cardiovascular system, and promote vasodilation (which may contribute to the hypotension and shock associated with sepsis syndrome). Nitric oxide in larger amounts may act as a mitochondrial toxin and inhibit several steps in the oxidative phosphorylation chain. Nitric oxide may also damage gut epithelium, increasing bacterial translocation and reducing overall gut integrity.63 Nitric oxide can also have nonspecific cytotoxic effects of inhibiting growth or killing cells indiscriminately.63

Clinical Review

There are no randomized studies of pure arginine supplementation in critically ill patients that evaluate clinically important outcomes. All studies in critically ill patients have combined arginine with other immune-modulating nutrients. When the results of these 15 trials were aggregated, there was no effect on mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CIs 0.82, 1.35; p = 0.7), no overall effect on infectious complications (RR 0.94; 95% CIs 0.76 to 1.16; p = 0.6), and a trend towards reduction in hospital length of stay (weighted mean difference –3.5; 95% CIs –8.8, 1.9; p = 0.20). The presence of significant statistical heterogeneity across studies weakens the estimate of effect on length of stay.

Concerns have been expressed that based on the scientific rationale presented above, arginine-containing products may worsen outcomes in critically ill septic patients.65 There are now three reports in the literature of excess mortality associated with critically ill septic patients who received arginine-supplemented diets.66–68 In contrast, Galban and colleagues69 demonstrated an increase in survival associated with arginine-supplemented diets in critically ill patients with infection. However, in this study, it was apparent that all the treatment benefit was in the least sick patients (baseline APACHE II score <15). The effect of arginine-containing products on critically ill patients with a high severity of illness remains unanswered. To the extent that in sepsis endotoxin exposure and cytokine activation have led to elevated levels of inducible nitric oxide synthesis, supplemental arginine may lead to the production of excessive amounts of nitric oxide, shock, and early death. Thus arginine-supplemented specialized diets should not be used in critically ill patients who are clearly septic. If a critically ill patient receiving an arginine-supplemented diet develops sepsis, the arginine-containing diet should be discontinued. Which subpopulations of critically ill patients benefit from these diets remains to be elucidated.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids

Omega-3 fatty acids may be provided in the form of fish oil or canola oil. These agents do not have direct stimulatory effects, but instead have an indirect effect by modifying phospholipids in cell membranes throughout the body.70 Omega-6 fatty acids are involved in the cyclooxygenase pathway, generating prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and leukotriene B4 (LTB4) from arachidonic acid. These are proinflammatory cytokines that lead to immune suppression and nosocomial infection, SIRS, and organ dysfunction. Through diet supplementation, omega-3 fatty acids compete with the omega-6 fatty acids for incorporation into cell membranes. Upon activation of the cyclooxygenase pathway, omega-3 fatty acids instead lead to the formation of PGE3 and LTB5. These compounds have $110 the biologic activity of the PGE2 and LTB4 series, and as a result have a much less immunosuppressive effect.70 Borage oil is unique as an omega-6 fatty acid, because it is metabolized to the PGE1 series. PGE1 possesses both anti-inflammatory and antiproliferative (reduced thrombosis) properties, and will attenuate the biosynthesis of arachidonic acid metabolites.71

Clinical Review

The only study of omega-3 fatty acids was conducted in patients with acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).72 The pathophysiology of this syndrome is thought be related to the release of arachidonic acid–related metabolites from inflammatory cells. Gadek and colleagues performed a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, clinical trial to evaluate whether a diet supplemented with eicosapentaenoic acid, docosahexanoic acid (DHA), borage oil, and antioxidants (Oxepa, Ross Products, Columbus, OH) would have a favorable effect on markers of inflammation in the lung and an improvement in clinical outcomes.72 In this study, 146 patients meeting the standard definition of ARDS with evidence of active pulmonary inflammation as indicated by fluid from a bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) that contained a neutrophil count >10%, were randomized to the experimental diet or a high-fat, low carbohydrate control feed.

In the subset of “evaluable” patients, those who received the experimental diet had higher plasma levels of dihomo-gamma linolenic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, and an increased eicosapentaenoic/arachidonic acid ratio. With respect to the clinically important outcomes, patients fed the experimental diet experienced a reduction in days receiving supplemental oxygen (13.6 vs. 17.1; p = 0.078), required significantly fewer days of ventilatory support (9.6 vs. 13.2; p = 0.027), and less time in the ICU (11.0 vs. 14.8; p = 0.016), and had fewer new organ failures (10% vs. 25%; p = 0.018). There was also a trend towards a reduction in mortality associated with the experimental diet (16% vs. 25%; p = 0.17).

This study confirms that short-term administration of dietary lipids in critically ill patients can modify fatty acid levels with a resultant favorable effect on neutrophil recruitment in the lung and subsequent clinical outcomes. However, given that a high-fat diet in itself may be harmful,73 the use of a high-fat control formula and the requirement for a BAL to identify patients with a high degree of neutrophils limits the applicability of these findings to clinical practice. Furthermore, it is difficult to attribute the beneficial effects of the experimental diet to fatty acid composition when it was combined with antioxidants as well.

Glutamine

The amino acid glutamine plays a central role in nitrogen transport within the body, is a fuel for rapidly dividing cells (particularly lymphocytes and gut epithelial cells), is a precursor to glutathione, and has many other essential metabolic functions. As noted previously, plasma glutamine levels drop during critical illness, and lower levels of glutamine have been associated with immune dysfunction74 and increased mortality.75 Human studies suggest that glutamine supplementation maintains gastrointestinal structure76 and is associated with decreased intestinal permeability compared to standard PN.77,78 In humans, glutamine-supplemented formulas have resulted in improved nitrogen balance,79 and higher intramuscular glutamine levels.80 Glutamine plays a crucial role in enhancing immune cell function81 with no elevation in proinflammatory cytokine production.82,83

There have been several randomized trials of perioperative or critically ill adults reporting on clinically important outcomes.84 When the results of these trials were aggregated, a significant reduction in mortality (RR 0.78; 95% CIs 0.61 to 0.99; p = 0.04), a trend towards a reduction in infectious complications (RR 0.89; 95% CIs 0.73 to 1.08; p = 0.2), and no overall effect on length of stay (LOS in days –1.30; 95% CIs – 4.77, 2.17; p = 0.5) were observed.85 Subgroup analysis suggested that with respect to mortality and infectious complications, the majority of the treatment effect observed was associated with parenteral glutamine in patients receiving PN compared to enteral glutamine supplementation. The majority of glutamine provided enterally will be metabolized in the gut and liver, and therefore may not have a systemic effect. The only study that demonstrated a mortality effect with enteral glutamine was a small study in burn patients.86 In a study of trauma patients, enteral feeds supplemented with glutamine were associated with a trend towards a reduced rate of infection compared to control feeds (20/35 [57%] vs. 26/37 [70%], p = 0.24).87

Therefore, for critically ill patients requiring PN, we recommend parenteral glutamine supplementation as long as the patient remains on PN. For patients with major burns or trauma, enteral diets supplemented with glutamine could be considered. Recommendations about glutamine supplementation (enteral or parenteral) in other critically ill patient populations fed enterally are premature and warrant further study.

Antioxidant Vitamins and Trace Minerals

While there is a putative beneficial role of reactive oxygen species in modulating cell signaling (redox signaling), and thus regulating proliferation, apoptosis, and cell protection, oxygen-derived radicals may cause cellular injury by numerous mechanisms, including destruction of cell membranes through the peroxidation of fatty acids, disruption of organelle membranes such as those covering lysosomes and mitochondria, degradation of hyaluronic acid and collagen, and disruption of enzymes like Na+,K+-ATPase or alpha1-proteinase inhibitor.

To protect tissues from oxygen free radical–induced injury, the body maintains a complex endogenous defense system that consists of a variety of extra- and intracellular antioxidant defense mechanisms. The first line of intracellular defense is comprised of a group of antioxidant enzymes such as superoxide dismutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, and glutathione reductase, including their metal cofactors selenium, copper, and zinc. When these enzymatic antioxidants are overwhelmed, oxygen free radicals (OFRs) are free to react with susceptible target molecules within the cell (i.e., unsaturated fatty acids of the cell membrane). Thus there is a need for a second line of defense scavenging OFRs by means of nonenzymatic antioxidants that are either water soluble, such as glutathione and vitamin C, or lipid soluble, such as vitamin E and beta-carotene.88

In critical illness, oxidative stress arises when the balance between protective antioxidant mechanisms and the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) is disturbed. This imbalance may be caused by excess generation of ROS by means of ischemia/reperfusion injury, inflammation, infection, and toxic agents (chemotherapy or drugs), or by low antioxidant capacity (secondary to comorbid illnesses, malnutrition, and excessive losses such as in the case of burns). Many studies have demonstrated low plasma and intracellular concentrations of the various antioxidants in critically ill patients, and the clinical consequence of these low endogenous stores of antioxidant levels is increased morbidity and mortality.89–91

Most of the immune formulas are fortified with vitamins and minerals that have increased antioxidant capabilities. Vitamins A, E, and C, and the trace mineral selenium have antioxidant capabilities and are added in different amounts to the various formulas. The exact doses of these components have not been standardized.

Single Antioxidant Nutrients

Selenium Alone

Selenium is an important co-factor in glutathione enzymatic function and has favorable effects on cellular immune function. In critically ill patients, there have been only a few randomized controlled trials looking at the effects of selenium supplementation alone.92–95 In a poorly designed trial of 17 patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis, parenteral supplementation of 500 μg of selenium was associated with a significant reduction in ICU mortality (0% vs. 89%).93 In a prospective randomized trial, Zimmermann and colleagues reported a reduction in mortality (15% vs. 40%) after IV administration of 1000 μg of sodium selenite for 28 days in patients with SIRS compared to placebo.94 However, no difference in mortality or pneumonia was seen in critically ill trauma/surgical patients given IV selenium supplementation (2.9 μmol/d) compared to placebo.92 In a trial of 42 patients with SIRS, subjects that received a higher dose of parenteral selenium (535 μg/d × 3 days, 285 μg/d × 3 days, 155 μg/d × 3 days, and 35 μg/d thereafter) versus a lower dose (35 μg/d) had a trend towards reduced hospital mortality (33% vs. 52%; p = 0.13).95 When the results from the four trials that compared supplementation of selenium alone to standard were aggregated,92–95 selenium was associated with a trend towards a reduction in mortality (RR 0.52; 95% CIs 0.21, 1.30; p = 0.16).85

Zinc Alone

Zinc is an essential trace element necessary for normal protein metabolism, membrane integrity, and the function of more than 200 metalloenzymes including enzymes involved in oxidative capacity. In a randomized, prospective, double-blinded controlled trial in severely head injured, ventilated patients, those receiving a higher zinc supplement (12 mg elemental zinc via PN for 15 days, then progressing to 3 months of oral zinc) had a trend towards a reduction in mortality (p = 0.09) when compared to those receiving a placebo (2.5 mg elemental zinc).96

Combined Antioxidant Nutrients

Many randomized controlled trials have chosen to administer a combination of antioxidants via various routes of administration, thereby making it impossible to attribute the outcomes to a specific nutrient. When 11 trials of single and combined antioxidants were aggregated, overall antioxidants were associated with a trend towards a reduction in mortality (RR = 0.73; 95% CIs 0.47, 1.12; p = 0.15) and no effect on infectious complications (RR = 0.94; 95% CIs 0.63, 1.40; p = 0.8).97 Thus, for critically ill patients, selenium supplementation in combination with other antioxidants (vitamin E/alpha tocopherol, vitamin C, N-acetylcysteine, and zinc) may be beneficial, but insufficient data currently exist to support clinical recommendations.

Role of Parenteral Nutrition

Several trials and meta-analyses have evaluated the treatment effect of parenteral nutrition in the last few years, and none has shown a positive result, while some have suggested increased harm associated with PN in the critically ill patient.11,98,99 We have already stated that EN is used preferentially to PN. However, to optimize the delivery of nutrients, some prescribe PN at the same time EN is initiated, to provide nearly all required calories and protein immediately. Then, as EN becomes successfully established, PN is reduced and eliminated. There are five randomized trials that address the clinical benefits of such a strategy in critically ill patients.100 All five studies reported on mortality and the aggregated results demonstrated a trend towards an increased mortality associated with the use of combination EN and PN (RR 1.27; 95% CIs 0.82 to 1.94; p = 0.3). In one study, there was a significant increase in mortality associated with supplemental PN.101 Supplemental PN was not associated with a difference in the incidence of infections (RR 1.14; 95% CIs 0.66 to 1.96; p = 0.6), had no effect on hospital stay (standardized mean difference 0.12; 95% CIs 0.45, 0.2; p = 0.5), and had no effect on ventilator days. Thus there appears to be no clinical evidence to support the practice of supplementing EN with PN when EN is initiated. If anything, there appears to be a signal of excess harm.

What about the patient who has been started on EN, and after several days is only tolerating inadequate amounts of EN? Does PN have a role in this patient population? The preferred approach is to continue with EN and standard IV therapy. However, at some point (probably between 7 and 14 days postinjury) the risk from further deterioration of nutritional status outweighs the risk of providing PN, due to the cumulative effect on immune function, continued losses to the lean body mass, and development of specific key nutrient deficiencies in the critically ill patient receiving inadequate nutritional support by EN. This time frame may be considerably shortened in patients at tremendously increased risk for deterioration of nutritional status due to the presence of large open wounds, enteric fistula, or short bowel syndrome. Unfortunately, there are no randomized trials to guide practitioners as to when PN should be initiated in patients tolerating inadequate amounts of EN. While the results of our previous reviews suggest that PN is associated with no clinical benefit or increased harm, prolonged starvation (more than 14 days) is equally associated with poor outcomes.102

In summary, PN has a very limited role in the critical care setting. PN should not be started in critically ill patients until all strategies to maximize EN delivery (such as the use of small bowel feeding tubes and motility agents) have been attempted. Waiting 2 weeks in someone tolerating inadequate amounts of EN is probably too long, but practitioners will have to weigh the safety and benefits of initiating PN in patients not tolerating EN on an individual case-by-case basis.

Maximizing the Benefits and Minimizing the Risks of Parenteral Nutrition

If PN is associated with harm in critically ill patients, it may be due to a variety of potentially avoidable pathophysiologic mechanisms, including overfeeding, the immunosuppressant effects of lipids, hyperglycemia, absence of key nutrients like glutamine, and the association of gut disuse and systemic inflammation. Understanding these potential mechanisms can guide practitioners when they use PN to use it in such a way that its benefits are maximized and its risks are minimized.

Role of Hypocaloric Parenteral Nutrition

Because of the degree of insulin resistance so commonly observed in stressed critically ill patients, providing large amounts of dextrose intravenously results in hyperglycemia and predisposes critically ill patients to risk of infection. Other attendant complications associated with overfeeding carbohydrates include hepatic steatosis, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypercapnia. This has given rise to the notion of hypocaloric or hypoenergetic PN as a strategy to minimize complications associated with PN. There are only two small studies that have evaluated the effect of hypocaloric feeding in critically ill patients. To achieve a hypocaloric dose of PN, Choban and associates103 reduced both carbohydrates and lipids in morbidly obese critically ill patients, while McCowen and colleagues104 withheld lipids in a heterogeneous group of patients, including critically ill patients. Only one study reported infectious complications, and in that study104 hypocaloric feeding was associated with a trend toward a reduction in infectious complications (p = 0.2). There were no significant differences in mortality or length of stay between groups in either study. Given the lack of positive treatment effect from standard PN, minimizing the dose of PN seems reasonable until further data emerge to prove the contrary.

Parenteral Lipids

There are several reports that demonstrate that intravenous lipids may adversely affect immune status and clinical outcomes.105,106 The results of previously described meta-analysis of PN11 suggest that the adverse effects of lipids may negate any beneficial effect of nonlipid parenteral nutritional supplementation. There are two studies reviewed that compared the use of lipids to no lipids in parenteral nutrition.104,107 A significant reduction in pneumonia (48% vs. 73%; p = 0.05), catheter-related sepsis (19% vs. 43%; p = 0.04), and a significantly shorter stay in both ICU (18 vs. 29 days; p = 0.02) and hospital (27 vs. 39 days; p = 0.03) was observed in trauma patients not receiving lipids compared to those receiving lipids.107 In the McCowen study mentioned previously, the group that received no lipids (hypocaloric group) showed a trend towards a reduction in infections (29% vs. 53%; p = 0.2). No difference in length of stay was seen in this study, and it did not report on ventilator days. Combining these two studies, the meta-analysis done showed a significant reduction in infections in the group that received no lipids (RR 0.63; CIs 0.42 to 0.93; p = 0.02) and no difference in mortality (RR 1.29; CIs 0.16 to 10.7; p = 0.8).

It is unknown what the effects of long-term fat-free parenteral nutrition would be, and there is a paucity of data in malnourished patients. Given these caveats, lipid-free PN is probably best indicated for those patients requiring PN for a short time (<10 days), where the risk of fatty acid deficiency would be minimal. This recommendation cannot be extrapolated to those who have an absolute contraindication to EN and need PN for a longer duration.

Tight Glycemic Control

Hyperglycemia, which occurs more often with PN than EN, is associated with increased infectious complications. Van den Berghe and associates108 compared intensive insulin therapy (target range 4.4 to 6.1 mmol/L) vs. conventional treatment (10.0 to 11.1 mmol/L) in critically ill patients receiving nutrition support. This was a large study (n = 1548) of surgical ICU patients (predominantly elective cardiovascular surgery) with a relatively low APACHE II score (median 9). Study patients were started on a glucose load (200 to 300 g/d) and then were advanced to PN, combined PN/EN, or EN after 24 hours of admission. Intensive insulin therapy was associated with a lower incidence of sepsis (p = 0.003), a trend towards a reduction in ventilator days, and a reduced ICU (p <0.04) and hospital mortality (p = 0.01), compared to conventional insulin therapy. From this study, one can infer that intensive insulin therapy to achieve tight glycemic control may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. The corollary to this is that high glucose loads in patients who are insulin resistant is associated with excess complications and increased mortality, which can be reduced by insulin. Whether insulin has any therapeutic effects in patients who do not receive such high glucose loads, or whether these results apply to other medical, sicker ICU patients is unknown. Despite these limitations, in the absence of further studies, patients prescribed PN should receive intensive insulin therapy to obtain tight glycemic control. This can best be accomplished by using an insulin protocol or nomogram.109

Supplementation with Glutamine

Perhaps the lack of treatment effect of PN relates to the lack of key nutrients necessary for repair and recovery following critical illness. As noted previously, there are data that suggest that PN supplemented with glutamine is associated with increased survival in seriously ill hospitalized patients.12 It is difficult to provide high-dose free glutamine intravenously to critically ill patients due to problems with limited solubility and stability, especially in critically ill patients with volume-restricted conditions. However, recent advances in parenteral glutamine delivery have overcome some of these challenges, making the provision of bioavailable glutamine practical, even at higher doses.110 The treatment effect is likely greatest when high-dose (>0.2 g/kg per day) glutamine is given parenterally to patients with gastrointestinal failure (and thus prescribed PN). Whether parenteral glutamine has a beneficial effect on patients receiving enteral nutrition is unknown.

Use of Enteral Nutrition in Patients on Parenteral Nutrition

The adverse effect of PN may be related to the absence of nutrients in the bowel. The gastrointestinal mucosa is metabolically very active and the lack of enteral nutrients (as in the case of PN) would result in mucosal atrophy, increased permeability, bacterial overgrowth, translocation of bacteria and/or gut-derived factors that activate the immune system, atrophy of the gut-associated lymphoid tissue, and increased production of proinflammatory cytokines.

An observational study suggested that low-volume EN is associated with less toxicity compared to PN alone.111 Clearly our recommendation is that EN is used preferentially to PN, but in the patient who is not tolerating adequate amounts of EN over a prolonged period of time, if PN is going to be used, we suggest that attempts to provide EN be continued until EN is successful and the PN can be discontinued.

Summary and Conclusions

Listen

An opportunity exists for aggressive enteral nutritional support to favorably alter a patient's course through critical illness. The window of time to start enteral feeding and/or key nutrients to resuscitate the metabolically active gastrointestinal tract is variable in duration depending on the specific disease process; the opportunity may involve a time frame as limited as several hours or as long as 2 to 3 days. During this period, provision of enteral nutrients in a way that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks (see Table 11-1) has the capability to maintain gut integrity, minimize permeability, reduce oxidative stress and macrophage activation, and ultimately improve patient outcome through reduced infectious morbidity, organ failure, length of hospitalization, and even mortality. There is a limited role for PN, and when it is used it should similarly be used in a way that maximizes the benefits and minimizes the risks (see Table 11-1).

References

Listen

1. Heyland DK: Nutritional support in the critically ill patient, a critical review of the evidence. Crit Care Clin 14:423, 1998. [PubMed: 9700440]

2. Heyland DK: A review of gut-specific strategies to reduce ICU-acquired infections. Curr Opin Crit Care 5:132, 1999.

3. Carrico CJ: The elusive pathophysiology of the multiple organ failure syndrome (editorial). Ann Surg 218:109, 1993. [PubMed: 8342989]

4. Bengmark S: Gut microenvironment and immune function. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2:1, 1999.

5. Brandtzaeg P, Halstersen TS, Kett K, et al: Immunobiology and immunopathology of the human gut mucosa: Humoral immunity and intraepithelial lymphocytes. Gastroenterology 97:1562, 1989. [PubMed: 2684725]

6. Girou E, Stephan F, Novara A, et al: Risk factors and outcome of nosocomial infections: Results of a matched case-control study of ICU patients. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 157:1151, 1998. [PubMed: 9563733]

7. Bueno-Cavanillas A, Delgado-Rodriguez M, Lopez-Luque A, et al: Influence of nosocomial infection on mortality rate in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 22:55, 1994. [PubMed: 8124975]

8. Atherton ST, White DJ: Stomach as source of bacteria colonising respiratory tract during artificial respiration. Lancet 2:968, 1978. [PubMed: 81991]

9. Pingleton SK, Hinthorn DR, Liu C: Enteral nutrition in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Am J Med 80:827, 1986. [PubMed: 3085492]

10. Heyland DK, Mandell LA: Gastric colonization and nosocomial pneumonia: Evidence for causation. Chest 101:187, 1992. [PubMed: 1729067]

11. Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, et al: Total parenteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: A meta-analysis. JAMA 280:2013, 1998. [PubMed: 9863853]

12. Novak F, Heyland DK, Avenell A, et al: Glutamine supplementation in serious illness: A systematic review of the evidence. Crit Care Med 30:2022, 2002. [PubMed: 12352035]

13. Heyland DK, Samis A: Does immunonutrition in septic patients do more harm than good? Intensive Care Med 29:669, 2003. [PubMed: 12664222]

14. Kudsk KA, Croce MA, Fabian TC, et al: Enteral versus parenteral feeding—Effects on septic morbidity after blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. Ann Surg 215:503, 1992. [PubMed: 1616387]

15. McClave SA, Greene LM, Snider HL, et al: Comparison of the safety of early enteral versus parenteral nutrition in mild acute pancreatitis. JPEN 21:14, 1997. [PubMed: 9002079]

16. Windsor ACJ, Kanwar S, Li AGK, et al: Compared with parenteral nutrition, enteral feeding attenuates the acute phase response and improves disease severity in acute pancreatitis. Gut 42:431, 1998. [PubMed: 9577354]

17. Kalfarentzos F, Kehagias J, Mead N, et al: Enteral nutrition is superior to parenteral nutrition in severe acute pancreatitis: Results of a randomized prospective trial. Br J Surg 84:1665, 1997. [PubMed: 9448611]

18. DeWitt RC, Kudsk KA: The gut's role in metabolism, mucosal barrier function, and gut immunology. Infect Dis Clin North Am 13:465, 1999. [PubMed: 10340178]

19. Kagnoff MF: Immunology of the intestinal tract. Gastroenterology 105:1275, 1993. [PubMed: 8224631]

20. Targan SR, Kagnoff MF, Brogan MD, Shanahan F: Immunologic mechanisms in intestinal diseases. Ann Intern Med 106:853, 1987. [PubMed: 3555203]

21. Dobbins WO: Gut immunophysiology: A gastroenterologist's view with emphasis on pathophysiology. Am J Physiol 242:G1, 1982.

22. Frost P, Bihari D: The route of nutritional support in the critically ill: Physiological and economical considerations. Nutrition 13:58S, 1997.

23. Moore EE, Moore FA: The role of the gut in provoking the systemic inflammatory response. J Crit Care Nutr 2:9, 1994.

24. Fink MP: Why the GI tract is pivotal in trauma, sepsis, and MOF. J Crit Illness 6:253, 1991.

25. Moore FA, Feliciano DV, Andrassy RJ, et al: Early enteral feeding, compared with parenteral, reduces postoperative septic complications. Ann Surg 216:172, 1992. [PubMed: 1386982]

26. Elson CO: The immunology of inflammatory bowel disease, in Kirsner JB (ed): Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 2000, p 208.

27. Jankovic D, Liu Z, Gause WC: Th1- and Th2-cell commitment during infectious disease: Asymmetry in divergent pathways. Trends Immunol 22:450, 2001. [PubMed: 11473835]

28. Fujimura Y, Owen RL: The intestinal epithelial M cell: Properties and functions, in Kirsner JB (ed): Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 2000, p 33.

29. Astiz ME, Rackow EC: Septic shock. Lancet 351:1501, 1998. [PubMed: 9605819]

30. Moore F: Effects of immune-enhancing diets on infectious morbidity and multiple organ failure. JPEN 25(2 Suppl):S36, 2001.

31. Groos S, Hunefeld G, Luciano L: Parenteral versus enteral nutrition: morphological changes in human adult intestinal mucosa. J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol 28:61, 1996. [PubMed: 8929627]

32. Ammori BJ, Leeder PC, King RF, et al: Early increase in intestinal permeability in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: Correlation with endotoxemia, organ failure, and mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 3:252, 1999. [PubMed: 10481118]

33. Fong YM, Marano MA, Barber A, et al: Total parenteral nutrition and bowel rest modify the metabolic response to endotoxin in humans. Ann Surg 210:449, 1989. [PubMed: 2508583]

34. Abou-Assi S, Craig K, O'Keefe SJ: Hypocaloric jejunal feeding is better than total parenteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis: Results of a randomized comparative study. Am J Gastroenterol 97:2255, 2002. [PubMed: 12358242]

35. Gramlich L, Kichian G, Pinilla J, et al: Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in the critically ill adult? A systematic review of the literature. Nutrition 2004 (in press).

36. Stack JA, Babineau TJ, Bistrian BR: Assessment of nutritional status in clinical practice. Gastroenterologist 4:S8, 1996.

37. Larvin M, McMahon MJ: APACHE-II score for assessment and monitoring of acute pancreatitis. Lancet 2:201, 1989. [PubMed: 2568529]

38. Corfield AP, Cooper MJ, Williamson RCN, et al: Prediction of severity in acute pancreatitis: Prospective comparison of three prognostic indices. Lancet ii:403, 1985.

39. Sax HC, Warner BW, Talamini MA, et al: Early total parenteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis: Lack of beneficial effects. Am J Surg 153:117, 1987. [PubMed: 3099588]

40. Ziegler TR, Smith RJ, O'Dwyer ST, et al: Increased intestinal permeability associated with infection in burn patients. Arch Surg 123:1313, 1988. [PubMed: 3140766]

41. Demeo MT: (personal communication).

42. Taylor SJ, Fettes SB, Jewkes C, Nelson RJ: Prospective, randomized, controlled trial to determine the effect of early enhanced enteral nutrition on clinical outcome in mechanically ventilated patients suffering head injury. Crit Care Med 27:2525, 1999. [PubMed: 10579275]

43. Atkinson S, Sieffert E, Bihari D: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial of enteral immunonutrition in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 26:1164, 1998. [PubMed: 9671364]

44. Zaloga GP: Bedside method for placing small bowel feeding tubes in critically ill patients. A prospective study. Chest 100:1643, 1991. [PubMed: 1959408]

45. Evans A, Winslow EH: Oxygen saturation and hemodynamic response in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults during intrahospital transport. Am J Crit Care 4:106, 1995. [PubMed: 7749441]

46. Smith I, Fleming S, Cernaianu A: Mishaps during transport from the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 18:278, 1990. [PubMed: 2302952]

47. Gutierrez ED, Balfe DM: Fluoroscopically guided nasoenteric feeding tube placement: Results of a one-year study. Radiology 178:759, 1991. [PubMed: 1899727]

48. Nachlas MM, Younis MT, Roda CP, et al: Gastrointestinal motility studies as a guide to postoperative management. Ann Surg 175:510, 1972. [PubMed: 5020667]

49. Drover JW, Mackenzie S, Dhaliwal R, Heyland DK: Early enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: Is there a positive effect on patient outcomes? Can J Gastroenterol 17:394, 2003.

50. Minard G, Kudsk KA, Melton S, et al. Early versus delayed feeding with an immune-enhancing diet in patients with severe head injuries. JPEN 24:145, 2000. [PubMed: 10850938]

51. Moore EE, Jones TN: Benefits of immediate jejunostomy feeding after major abdominal trauma—A prospective, randomized study. J Trauma 26:874, 1986. [PubMed: 3095557]

52. Singh G, Ram RP, Khanna SK: Early postoperative enteral feeding in patients with nontraumatic intestinal perforation and peritonitis. J Am Coll Surg 187:142, 1998. [PubMed: 9704959]

53. Ibrahim EH, Mehringer L, Prentice D, et al: Early versus late enteral feeding of mechanically ventilated patients: Results of a clinical trial. JPEN 26:174, 2002. [PubMed: 12005458]

54. Mentec H, Dupont H, Bocchetti M, et al: Upper digestive intolerance during enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: Frequency, risk factors, and complications. Crit Care Med 29:1955, 2001. [PubMed: 11588461]

55. Lukan JK, McClave SA, Stefater AJ, et al: Poor validity of residual volumes as a marker for risk of aspiration. Am J Clin Nutr 75:417, 2002.

56. McClave SA, Demeo MT, Delegge MH, et al: North American Summit on Aspiration in the Critically Ill Patient: Consensus Statement. JPEN 26:S80, 2002.

57. Heyland DK, Drover JW, MacDonald S, et al: Effect of postpyloric feeding on gastroesophageal regurgitation and pulmonary microaspiration: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 29:1495, 2001. [PubMed: 11505114]

58. Heyland DK, Drover JD, Dhaliwal R, Greenwood J: Optimizing the benefits and minimizing the risks of enteral nutrition in the critically ill: Role of small bowel feeding. JPEN 26:S51, 2002.

59. Drakulovic MB, Torres A, Bauer TT, et al: Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: A randomised trial. Lancet 354:1851, 1999. [PubMed: 10584721]

60. Booth CM, Heyland DK, Paterson WG: Gastrointestinal promotility drugs in the critical care setting: A systematic review of the evidence. Crit Care Med 30:1429, 2002. [PubMed: 12130957]

61. Heyland DK, Konopad E, Alberda C, et al: How well do critically ill patients tolerate early, intragastric enteral feeding? Results of a prospective multicenter trial. Nutr Clin Pract 14:23, 1999.

62. Spain DA, McClave SA, Sexton LK, et al: Infusion protocol improves delivery of enteral tube feeding in the critical care unit. JPEN 23:288, 1999. [PubMed: 10485441]

63. Suchner U, Heyland DK, Peter K: Immune-modulatory actions of arginine in the critically ill. Br J Nutr 87(Suppl 1):S121, 2002.

64. Ochoa JB, Bernard AC, O'Brien WE, et al: Arginase I expression and activity in human mononuclear cells after injury. Ann Surg 233:393, 2001. [PubMed: 11224628]

65. Heyland DK, Novak F: Immunonutrition in the critically ill patient: More harm than good? JPEN 25:S51, 2001.

66. Bertolini G, Iapichino G, Radrizzani D, et al: Early enteral immunonutrition in severely septic patients: Results of an interim analysis of a randomized multicenter trial. Intensive Care Med 29:834, 2003. [PubMed: 12684745]

67. Bower RH, Cerra FB, Bershadsky B, et al: Early enteral administration of a formula (Impact) supplemented with arginine, nucleotides, and fish oil in intensive care unit patients: results of a multicenter, prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Crit Care Med 23:436, 1995. [PubMed: 7874893]

68. Dent DL, Heyland DK, Levy H, et al: Immunonutrition may increase mortality in critically ill patients with pneumonia: Results of a randomized trial. Crit Care Med 30:A17, 2003.

69. Galban C, Montejo JC, Mesejo A, et al: An immune-enhancing enteral diet reduces mortality rate and episodes of bacteremia in septic intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 28:643, 2000. [PubMed: 10752808]

70. Schloerb PR: Immune-enhancing diets: products, components, and their rationales. JPEN 25(2 Suppl):S3, 2001.

71. Fan Y, Chapkin RS: Importance of dietary γ-linoleic acid in human health and nutrition. J Nutr 128:1411, 1998. [PubMed: 9732298]

72. Gadek JE, DeMichele SJ, Karlstad MD, et al: Effect of enteral feeding with eicosapentaenoic acid, gamma-linolenic acid, and antioxidants in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 27:1409, 1999. [PubMed: 10470743]

73. Garrel D, Razi M, Lariviere F, et al: Improved clinical status and length of care with low-fat nutrition support in burns patients. JPEN 19:482, 1995. [PubMed: 8748363]

74. Oehler R, Pusch E, Dungel P, et al: Glutamine depletion impairs cellular stress response in human leucocytes. Br J Nutr 87:S17, 2002.

75. Roth E, Funovics J, Muhlbacher F, et al: Metabolic disorders in severe abdominal sepsis: Glutamine deficiency in skeletal muscle. Clin Nutr 1:25, 1982.

76. Tremel H, Kienle B, Weilemann LS, et al: Glutamine dipeptide-supplemented parenteral nutrition maintains intestinal function in the critically ill. Gastroenterology 107:1595, 1994. [PubMed: 7958669]

77. Buchman AL, Moukarzel AA, Bhuta S, et al: Parenteral nutrition is associated with intestinal morphologic and functional changes in humans. JPEN 19:453, 1995. [PubMed: 8748359]

78. van der Hulst RR, van Kreel BK, von Meyenfeldt , et al: Glutamine and the preservation of gut integrity. Lancet 341:1363, 1993.

79. Hammarqvist F, Wernerman J, Ali R, et al: Addition of glutamine to total parenteral nutrition after elective abdominal surgery spares free glutamine in muscle, counteracts the fall in muscle protein synthesis, and improves nitrogen balance. Ann Surg 209:455, 1989. [PubMed: 2494960]

80. Stehle P, Zander J, Mertes N, et al: Effect of parenteral glutamine peptide supplements on muscle glutamine loss and nitrogen balance after major surgery. Lancet 1:231, 1989. [PubMed: 2563409]

81. Ogle CK, Ogle JD, Mao JX, et al: Effect of glutamine on phagocytosis and bacterial killing by normal and pediatric burn patient neutrophils. JPEN 18:128, 1994. [PubMed: 8201747]

82. O'Riordain MG, De Beaux A, Fearon KC: Effect of glutamine on immune function in the surgical patient. Nutrition 12:S82, 1996.

83. Aosasa S, Mochizuki H, Yamamoto T, et al: A clinical study of the effectiveness of oral glutamine supplementation during total parenteral nutrition: Influence on mesenteric mononuclear cells. JPEN 23:S41, 1999.

84. Novak F, Heyland DK, Avenell A, et al: Glutamine supplementation in serious illness: A systematic review of the evidence. Crit Care Med 30:2022, 2002. [PubMed: 12352035]

85. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Suchner U: Immunonutrition, in Clinical Nutrition: Enteral and Tube Feeding. Ed, Rolandelli, 2003, (in press).

86. Garrel D, Nedelec B, Samson L, et al: Decreased mortality and infectious morbidity in adult burn patients given enteral glutamine supplementation. Clin Nutr 22:S78, 2003.

87. Houdijk AP, Rijnsburger ER, Jansen J, et al: Randomised trial of glutamine-enriched enteral nutrition on infectious morbidity in patients with multiple trauma. Lancet 352:772, 1998. [PubMed: 9737282]

88. Tanswell AK, Freeman BA: Antioxidant therapy in critical care medicine. New Horiz 3:330, 1995. [PubMed: 7583174]

89. Goode HF, Cowley HC, Walker BE, et al: Decreased antioxidant status and increased lipid peroxidation in patients with septic shock and secondary organ dysfunction. Crit Care Med 23:646, 1995. [PubMed: 7712754]

90. Cowley HC, Bacon PJ, Goode HF, et al: Plasma antioxidant potential in severe sepsis: A comparison of survivors and non-survivors. Crit Care Med 24:1179, 1996. [PubMed: 8674332]

91. Forceville X, Vitoux D, Guazit R, et al: Selenium, systemic immune response syndrome, sepsis and outcomes in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 26:1536, 1998. [PubMed: 9751590]

92. Berger MM, Recmond MJ, Shenkin A, et al: Influence of selenium supplements on the post-traumatic alterations of the thyroid axis: a placebo-controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 27:91, 2001. [PubMed: 11280679]

93. Kuklinski B, Buchner M, Schweder R, Nagel R: Akute Pancreatitis-eine “Free Radical Disease”: Letalitatssenkung durch Natriumselenit (Na2SeO3)-Therapie. Z Gestamte Inn Med 46:S145, 1991.

94. Zimmermann T, Albrecht S, Kühne H, et al: [Selenium administration in patients with sepsis syndrome. A prospective randomized study.] Med Klin 92:(Suppl III):3, 1997 (article in German).

95. Angstwurm MW, Schottdorf J, Schopohl J, Gaertner R: Selenium replacement in patients with severe systemic inflammatory response syndrome improves clinical outcome. Crit Care Med 27:1807, 1999. [PubMed: 10507602]

96. Young B, Ott L, Kasarskis E, et al: Zinc supplementation is associated with improved neurologic recovery rate and visceral protein levels of patients with severe closed head injury. J Neurotrauma 13:25, 1996. [PubMed: 8714860]

97. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Berger M, et al: Antioxidant nutrients: A systematic review of vitamins and trace elements in the critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 31:A8, 2003.

98. Braunschweig CL, Levy P, Sheean PM, Wang X: Enteral compared with parenteral nutrition: A meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 74:534, 2001. [PubMed: 11566654]

99. Koretz RL, Lipman TO, Klein S: American Gastroenterological Association. AGA technical review on parenteral nutrition. Gastroenterology 121:970, 2001. [PubMed: 11606512]

100. Dhaliwal R, Jurewitsch B, Harrietta D, Heyland DK: Combination enteral nutrition and parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: harmful or beneficial? A review of the evidence. Intensive Care Med 2004 (in press).

101. Herndon DN, Barrow RE, Stein M, et al: Increased mortality with intravenous supplemental feeding in severely burned patients. J Burn Care Rehabil 10:309, 1989. [PubMed: 2507548]

102. Sandstrom R, Drott C, Hyltander A, et al: The effect of postoperative intravenous feeding (PN) on outcome following major surgery evaluated in a randomized study. Ann Surg 217:185, 1993. [PubMed: 8439216]

103. Choban PS, Burge JC, Scales D, et al: Hypoenergetic nutrition support in hospitalized obese patients: A simplified method for clinical application. Am J Clin Nutr 66:546, 1997. [PubMed: 9280171]

104. McCowen KC, Friel C, Sternberg J, et al: Hypocaloric total parenteral nutrition: Effectiveness in prevention of hyperglycemia and infectious complications. A randomized clinical trial. Crit Care Med 28:3606, 2000. [PubMed: 11098961]

105. Seidener DL, Mascioli EA, Istfan NW, et al: Effects of long-chain triglyceride emulsions on reticuloendothelial system function in humans. JPEN 13:614, 1989.

106. Freeman J, Goldmann DA, Smith NE, et al: Association of intravenous lipid emulsion and coagulase-negative staphylococcal bacteremia in neonatal intensive care units. N Engl J Med 323:301, 1990. [PubMed: 2082952]

107. Basttistella FD, Widergren JT, Anderson JT, et al: A prospective, randomized trial of intravenous fat emulsion administration in trauma victims requiring total parenteral nutrition. J Trauma 43:52, 1997; discussion 58.

108. Van den berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al: Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 345:1359, 2001.

109. Brown G Dodek P: Intravenous insulin nomogram improves blood glucose control in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 29:1714, 2001. [PubMed: 11546970]

110. Furst P: New advances in glutamine delivery. J Clin Nutr 131:2562S, 2001.

111. Marik PE, Karnack C, Varon J: The addition of trickle feeds reduces the complications associated with parenteral nutrition. Crit Care Shock 5:165, 2002.

Pop-up div Successfully Displayed

This div only appears when the trigger link is hovered over. Otherwise it is hidden from view.

Send Email

Jump to a Section

Figure 11–1.

Figure 11–2.

Readiness for Enteral Nutrition

Achieving Access

Assessing Tolerance

Timing of Enteral Nutrition

Reducing Risk of Aspiration

Role of Small Bowel Feeding

Body Position

Motility Agents

Feeding Protocols

Role of Immune Stimulants and Antioxidants

Figure 11–3.

Clinical Review

Omega-3 Fatty Acids

Clinical Review

Antioxidant Vitamins and Trace Minerals

Single Antioxidant Nutrients

Selenium Alone

Zinc Alone

Combined Antioxidant Nutrients

Role of Parenteral Nutrition

Maximizing the Benefits and Minimizing the Risks of Parenteral Nutrition

Role of Hypocaloric Parenteral Nutrition

Parenteral Lipids

Tight Glycemic Control

Supplementation with Glutamine

Use of Enteral Nutrition in Patients on Parenteral Nutrition

Pop-up div Successfully Displayed