Скачать презентацию Iatrogenic Underfeeding is Harmful to High-Risk Critically ill Скачать презентацию Iatrogenic Underfeeding is Harmful to High-Risk Critically ill

19354a1c563ab4c332546e569ace9595.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 54

Iatrogenic Underfeeding is Harmful to ‘High-Risk’ Critically ill Patients! Daren K. Heyland Professor of Iatrogenic Underfeeding is Harmful to ‘High-Risk’ Critically ill Patients! Daren K. Heyland Professor of Medicine Queen’s University, Kingston General Hospital Kingston, ON Canada

Learning Objectives • Review the evidentiary basis for the amount of macronutrients provided to Learning Objectives • Review the evidentiary basis for the amount of macronutrients provided to critically ill patients • List approaches for risk assessment in the ICU setting • List strategies to improve nutritional adequacy in the critical care setting

www. criticacarenutrition. com www. criticacarenutrition. com

Summary of Highlights • Downgrade – EN vs PN (to ‘recommend’) – IV and Summary of Highlights • Downgrade – EN vs PN (to ‘recommend’) – IV and EN glutamine (to ‘strongly recommend not be used’) – Selenium (recommended not to be used) • Upgrade – Early PN ‘should be considered’ in high-risk pts with relative contraindication to EN.

Most Controversial CPGs? Most Controversial CPGs?

PERMIT Trial Design 40 -60% prescribed calories for 14 days 894 ICU Patients Fed PERMIT Trial Design 40 -60% prescribed calories for 14 days 894 ICU Patients Fed enterally R Protein dose the same 70 -100% prescribed for 14 days Primary Outcome 90 -day mortality

Results of PERMIT Trial Results of PERMIT Trial

SHOULD WE PERMIT SYSTEMATIC UNDERFEEDING IN ALL ICU PATIENTS? HOW DO WE INTEGRATE THE SHOULD WE PERMIT SYSTEMATIC UNDERFEEDING IN ALL ICU PATIENTS? HOW DO WE INTEGRATE THE RESULTS OF THE PERMIT STUDY IN OUR CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES.

To answer these question, we need to consider…. 1. Who were these patients studied To answer these question, we need to consider…. 1. Who were these patients studied in the PERMIT study? 2. What was the intervention? 3. Were all clinically important outcomes considered?

Patients Enrolled in PERMIT Trial Patients Enrolled in PERMIT Trial

Initial Tropic vs. Full EN in Patients with Acute Lung Injury The EDEN randomized Initial Tropic vs. Full EN in Patients with Acute Lung Injury The EDEN randomized trial Enrolled 12% of patients screened Rice TW, et al. JAMA. 2012; 307(8): 795 -803.

Trophic vs. Full EN in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure Average 52 Trophic vs. Full EN in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure Average 52 Few comorbidities Average BMI* 29 -30 All fed within 24 hours (benefits of early EN) Average duration of study intervention 5 days No effect in young, healthy, overweight patients who have short stays! * BMI: body mass index Alberda C, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2009; 35(10): 1728 -37.

ICU patients are not all created equal…should we expect the impact of nutrition therapy ICU patients are not all created equal…should we expect the impact of nutrition therapy to be the same across all patients?

Not all ICU Patient the same! • Low Risk – 34 year former football Not all ICU Patient the same! • Low Risk – 34 year former football player, – BMI 35 – otherwise healthy – involved in motor vehicle accident – Mild head injury and fractured R leg requiring ORIF • High Risk – 79 women – BMI 35 – PMHx COPD, poor functional status, frail – Admitted to hospital 1 week ago with CAP – Now presents in respiratory failure requiring intubation and ICU admission

 • Point prevalence survey of nutrition practices in ICU’s around the world conducted • Point prevalence survey of nutrition practices in ICU’s around the world conducted Jan. 27, 2007 • Enrolled 2772 patients from 158 ICU’s over 5 continents • Included ventilated adult patients who remained in ICU >72 hours

25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Mechancially Vent’d patients >7 days (average ICU LOS 28 days) Faisy BJN 2009; 101: Mechancially Vent’d patients >7 days (average ICU LOS 28 days) Faisy BJN 2009; 101: 1079

How do we figure out who will benefit the most from Nutrition Therapy? How do we figure out who will benefit the most from Nutrition Therapy?

A Conceptual Model for Nutrition Risk Assessment in the Critically Ill Acute Chronic -Reduced A Conceptual Model for Nutrition Risk Assessment in the Critically Ill Acute Chronic -Reduced po intake -pre ICU hospital stay -Recent weight loss -BMI? Starvation Nutrition Status micronutrient levels - immune markers - muscle mass Acute -IL-6 -CRP -PCT Inflammation Chronic -Comorbid illness

The Development of the NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill Score (NUTRIC Score). Variable The Development of the NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill Score (NUTRIC Score). Variable Age APACHE II SOFA # Comorbidities Range <50 50 -<75 >=75 <15 15 -<20 20 -28 >=28 <6 6 -<10 >=10 0 -1 2+ Points 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 1 Days from hospital to ICU admit 0 -<1 1+ 0 1 IL 6 0 -<400 400+ 0 1 AUC Gen R-Squared Gen Max-rescaled R-Squared 0. 783 0. 169 0. 256 BMI, CRP, PCT, weight loss, and oral intake were excluded because they were not significantly associated with mortality or their inclusion did not improve the fit of the final model.

The Validation of the NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill Score (NUTRIC Score). Interaction The Validation of the NUTrition Risk in the Critically ill Score (NUTRIC Score). Interaction between NUTRIC Score and nutritional adequacy (n=211) * P value for the interaction=0. 01 Heyland Critical Care 2011, 15: R 28

Further validation of the “modified NUTRIC” nutritional risk assessment tool • In a second Further validation of the “modified NUTRIC” nutritional risk assessment tool • In a second data set of 1200 ICU patients • Minus IL-6 levels Rahman Clinical Nutrition 2015

Validation of NUTRIC Score in Large International Database >2800 patients from >200 ICUs Odds Validation of NUTRIC Score in Large International Database >2800 patients from >200 ICUs Odds Ratio (95% CI) for 60 day mortality^ for every 10% increase in nutrition intake Protein Calories ^Faster time-to-discharge alive with more protein and calories ONLY in the high NUTRIC group Compher (in submission)

NUTRIC score - Effectiveness of a nutritional risk assessment tool. Rosa Mendes , Sara NUTRIC score - Effectiveness of a nutritional risk assessment tool. Rosa Mendes , Sara Policarpopatients, Marta. Portuguese. Daren K. Heyland in critically ill , Philip Fortuna of Alves , Daniel Virella , ICU 1* 2 1 3 3 MON PP-180 4 1 - Medical Urgency Unit (General Intensive Care Unit), S. José Hospital, Central Lisbon Hospital Center, Lisbon, Portugal, 2 - Dietetics and Nutrition Department, Santa Maria University Hospital, North Lisbon Hospital Center, Lisbon, Portugal 3 - Research Unit, Central Lisbon Hospital Center, Lisbon, Portugal, 4 - Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada Conclusions High nutritional risk is present in half of the patients in Portuguese ICU. NUTRIC score strongly associates with main clinical outcomes; it presented high positive predictive value and low negative predictive value to predict 28 -day mortality as well. Results Introduction & Aim Assessing nutritional risk in critically ill patients may indicate which patients will benefit from a more aggressive nutritional therapy. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of the NUTrition Risk in the Critically Ill (NUTRIC) score without interleucine-6 (IL-6), in Portuguese intensive care units (ICU) and to characterize the 1143 admissions were considered. The median (P 25 -P 75) age at admission was 64 (51 -75) years. Males predominated (n=744, 64. 7%). 397 (34. 5%) patients presented two or more co-morbidities. Patients at high nutritional risk were 48. 5% (n=558). The median (P 25 -P 75) of the days off MV was 6 (2 -12) days and of LOS was 9 (5 -15) days. 21. 7% (n=245/1128) of patients were deceased at day-28. High NUTRIC score was associated with LOS (p<0. 001), days off MV (p<0. 001) and 28 -day mortality (p<0. 001). The AUC of the NUTRIC score for predicting 28 -day mortality was 0. 718 (95%CI 0. 69 -0. 75); NUTRIC score ≥ 5 predicted 73. 5% of deceased and 41. 4% of survivors. Variables in NUTRIC score nutritional risk of our critically ill patients. NUTRIC scoring Original system development sample (n=598) Range Points Effectiveness study sample (n=1143) <50 0 130 (21. 7) 255 (22. 3) 50 -75 1 345 (57. 7) 574 (50. 2) ≥ 75 Age 2 123 (20. 6) 314 (27. 5) <15 APACHE II Prospective, observational, non-randomized 0 111 (18. 6) 1 135 (22. 6) 257 (22. 5) 20 - <28 2 226 (37. 8) 374 (32. 7) 3 126 (21. 1) 0. 003 292 (25. 6) 15 - <20 ≥ 28 Methods p 219 (19. 2) 0. 007 study conducted over 6 months in 2014, in 15 Portuguese ICU´s. Patients ≥ 18 years of <6 age, mechanically ventilated (MV), with 0 220 (36. 8) 376 (32. 9) 6 - <10 1 247 (41. 3) 436 (38. 1) ≥ 10 SOFA 2 131 (21. 9) 331 (29. 0) 0 -1 0 160 (26. 8) 750 (65. 6) ≥ 2 1 438 (73. 2) 393 (34. 4) <1 0 375 (62. 7) 466 (40. 9) ≥ 1 1 223 (37. 3) 678 (59. 4) length of ICU stay (LOS) ≥ 72 hours were 0. 007 included. Brain dead patients or those Co-morbidities previously admitted in another ICU were excluded. NUTRIC score, without IL-6 levels, Days from hospital to ICU admission was calculated at admission. The score Score Range 0 -10 (3 -6) 0 -9 (3 -6) ranges from zero to nine; those above five Score mean 4. 7 (2. 2) 4. 4 (2. 1) 0. 086 were considered high nutritional risk. Main AUC 0. 783 0. 718 0. 232 Gen R 2 0. 169 0. 103 Gen Max-rescaled R 2 0. 256 0. 158 outcome measures were LOS, days off MV and 28 -day mortality. <0. 001 NUTRIC Score Portugal Group: CHLC-UUM: Mendes R. , Fortuna P. , Francisco A. R. MD, Graça A. MD, Guerreiro G. RD; CHLC-UCIP 1: Simas A. MD, Miranda I. MD, Cruz M. V. MD, Shumanska Z. MD; CHLN-UIR: Policarpo S; CHLN-UCIR: Martins T RD; CHSJUCPU: Gomes J. P. MD; CHSJ-UCPG: Aguiar L MD; IPO-Porto: Cabral S RN; CHEDV-UCIP: Rodrigues P. R. MD; CHVR/PR-UCIP: Santos A. MD, Gonçalves L. MD; CHUC-UCI: Martins P. MD, Ph. D; CHTV-UCIP: Melo E. MD; ULSBA-UCIP: Carvalho A. MD, Barahona I. MD; HLA-UCI: Vilas M. J. MD; CHA-Med 1/EUCI: Sousa A. MD; HDES-UCI: Henriques M. MD, Carvalho R. RN

Who might benefit the most from nutrition therapy? At Baseline Assessment • High NUTRIC Who might benefit the most from nutrition therapy? At Baseline Assessment • High NUTRIC Score • Clinical – BMI – Projected long length of stay • • Nutritional history variables Sarcopenia Medical vs. Surgical Others?

It is plausible that nutrition high risk patients (not well represented in these study) It is plausible that nutrition high risk patients (not well represented in these study) could still benefit from optimal nutritional delivery.

Optimal Amount of Calories for Critically Ill Patients: Depends on how you slice the Optimal Amount of Calories for Critically Ill Patients: Depends on how you slice the cake! • Objective: To examine the relationship between the amount of calories recieved and mortality using various sample restriction and statistical adjustment techniques and demonstrate the influence of the analytic approach on the results. • Design: Prospective, multi-institutional audit • Setting: 352 Intensive Care Units (ICUs) from 33 countries. • Patients: 7, 872 mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients who remained in ICU for at least 96 hours. Heyland Crit Care Med 2011

Association Between 12 -day Nutritional Adequacy and 60 -Day Hospital Mortality Optimal amount= 80 Association Between 12 -day Nutritional Adequacy and 60 -Day Hospital Mortality Optimal amount= 80 -85% Heyland CCM 2011

Optimal Nutrition (>80%) is associated with Optimal Outcomes! (For High Risk Patients) If you Optimal Nutrition (>80%) is associated with Optimal Outcomes! (For High Risk Patients) If you feed them (better!) They will leave (sooner!)

To answer these question, we need to consider…. 1. Who were these patients studied To answer these question, we need to consider…. 1. Who were these patients studied in the PERMIT study? 2. What was the intervention? 3. Were all clinically important outcomes considered?

PERMIT Trial Design 40 -60% prescribed calories for 14 days 894 ICU Patients Fed PERMIT Trial Design 40 -60% prescribed calories for 14 days 894 ICU Patients Fed enterally R Protein dose the same 70 -100% prescribed for 14 days Primary Outcome 90 -day mortality

How well did they do? 46% vs. 71% 0. 7 g/kg/day in both groups How well did they do? 46% vs. 71% 0. 7 g/kg/day in both groups 68%

Impact of Protein Intake on 60 -day Mortality • Data from 2828 patients from Impact of Protein Intake on 60 -day Mortality • Data from 2828 patients from 2013 International Nutrition Survey Patients in ICU ≥ 4 d Variable 60 -Day Mortality, Odds Ratio (95% CI) Protein Intake (Delivery > 80% of prescribed vs. < 80%) Energy Intake (Delivery > 80% vs. < 80% of Prescribed) Adjusted¹ Adjusted² 0. 61 (0. 47, 0. 818) 0. 66 (0. 50, 0. 88) 0. 71 (0. 56, 0. 89) 0. 88 (0. 70, 1. 11) ¹ Adjusted for BMI, Gender, Admission Type, Age, Evaluable Days, APACHE II Score, SOFA Score ² Adjusted for all in model 1 plus for calories and protein Nicolo JPEN 2015

Rate of Mortality Relative to Adequacy of Protein and Energy Intake Delivered Heyland JPEN Rate of Mortality Relative to Adequacy of Protein and Energy Intake Delivered Heyland JPEN 2015

 • 113 select ICU patients with sepsis or burns • On average, receiving • 113 select ICU patients with sepsis or burns • On average, receiving 1900 kcal/day and 84 grams of protein • No significant relationship with energy intake but…… 1. 45 gm/kg/d 1. 06 gm/kg/d 0. 79 gm/kg/d Clinical Nutrition 2012

It is an open question whether higher amounts of protein will translate into improved It is an open question whether higher amounts of protein will translate into improved clinical outcomes for such heterogeneous critically ill patients.

To answer these question, we need to consider…. 1. Who were these patients studied To answer these question, we need to consider…. 1. Who were these patients studied in the PERMIT study? 2. What was the intervention? 3. Were all clinically important outcomes considered?

Initial Tropic vs. Full EN in Patients with Acute Lung Injury The EDEN randomized Initial Tropic vs. Full EN in Patients with Acute Lung Injury The EDEN randomized trial Rice TW, et al. JAMA. 2012; 307(8): 795 -803.

Trophic vs. Full enteral feeding in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure “survivors Trophic vs. Full enteral feeding in critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure “survivors who received initial full-energy enteral nutrition were more likely to be discharged home with or without help as compared to a rehabilitation facility (68. 3% for the full-energy group vs. 51. 3% for the trophic group; p =. 04). ” Rice CCM 2011; 39: 967

Nutritional Adequacy and Long-term Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation • Nutritional Adequacy and Long-term Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation • Sub study of the REDOXS study • 302 patients survived to 6 -months follow-up and were mechanically ventilated for more than eight days in the intensive care unit were included. • Nutritional adequacy was obtained from the average proportion of prescribed calories received during the first eight days of mechanical ventilation in the ICU. • HRQo. L was prospectively assessed using Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire at three-months and six-months post ICU admission. Wei CCM 2015

Estimates of association between nutritional adequacy and SF-36 scores *Every 25% increase in nutritional Estimates of association between nutritional adequacy and SF-36 scores *Every 25% increase in nutritional adequacy; adjusted for age, APACHE II score, baseline SOFA, Functional Comorbidity Index, admission category, primary ICU diagnosis, body mass index, and region

So if we follow the results from the PERMIT study and continue to permit So if we follow the results from the PERMIT study and continue to permit underfeeding, it is possible that we are harming some ICU patients, particularly those with long ICU stays.

On our website www. criticalcarenutrition. com and published in JPEN 2015 On our website www. criticalcarenutrition. com and published in JPEN 2015

Earlier and Optimal Nutrition (>80%) is Better! (For High Risk Patients) If you feed Earlier and Optimal Nutrition (>80%) is Better! (For High Risk Patients) If you feed them (better!) They will leave (sooner!)

The Prevalence of Iatrogenic Underfeeding in the Nutritionally ‘At-Risk’ Critically Ill Patient % high The Prevalence of Iatrogenic Underfeeding in the Nutritionally ‘At-Risk’ Critically Ill Patient % high risk patients who failed to meet minimal quality targets (80% overall energy adequacy) Of all at-risk patients, 14% were ever prescribed volume-based feeds 15% ever received s. PN Failure Rate Heyland Clinical Nutrition 2015

Can we do better? The same thinking that got you into this mess won’t Can we do better? The same thinking that got you into this mess won’t get you out of it!

The Efficacy of Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route in Critically Ill Patients: The Efficacy of Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route in Critically Ill Patients: The PEP u. P Protocol! • Different feeding options based on hemodynamic stability and suitability for high volume intragastric feeds. • In select patients, we start the EN immediately at goal rate, not at 25 ml/hr. • We target a 24 hour volume of EN rather than an hourly rate and provide the nurse with the latitude to increase the hourly rate to make up the 24 hour volume. • Start with a semi elemental solution, progress to polymeric • Tolerate higher GRV threshold (300 ml or more) • Motility agents and protein supplements are started immediately, rather than started when there is a problem. A Major Paradigm Shift in How we Feed Enterally Heyland Crit Care 2010; see www. criticalcarenutrition. com for more information on the PEP u. P collaborative

Results of the Canadian PEP u. P Collaborative Results of 2013 International Nutrition Survey Results of the Canadian PEP u. P Collaborative Results of 2013 International Nutrition Survey Heyland JPEN 2014

Start PEP UP within 24 -48 hrs At 72 hrs YES >80% of Goal Start PEP UP within 24 -48 hrs At 72 hrs YES >80% of Goal Calories? NO No Yes Anticipated Long Stay? High Risk? Carry on! Yes No Maximize EN with motility agents and small bowel feeding YES No Supplemental PN? Tolerating EN at 96 hrs? No problem NO Yes No problem

In Conclusion • Not all ICU patients are the same in terms of ‘risk’ In Conclusion • Not all ICU patients are the same in terms of ‘risk’ • Iatrogenic underfeeding is harmful in some ICU patients or some will benefit more from aggressive feeding (avoiding protein/calorie debt) • BMI, LOS, and/or NUTRIC Score is one way to quantify that risk • Need to do something to reduce iatrogenic underfeeding in your ICU! – PEP u. P protocol in all – Selective use of small bowel feeds then s. PN in high risk patients – Monitor performance

Questions? Questions?