Gavri Christina, Kokkoris Stelios, Vasileiadis Ioannis, Oeconomopoulou Angeliki C, Kotanidou Anastasia, Nanas Serafeim, Routsi Christina
Department of Clinical Nutrition, Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece.
First Department of Critical Care, Medical School, University of Athens, Evangelismos Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2016 Apr;12:e14-e19. doi: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2016.01.002. Epub 2016 Mar 2.
The association of nutritional support practices with intensive care unit (ICU) - acquired infections is a current field of interest. The objective of this study was to determine whether different routes of delivery of nutritional support are associated with a different risk of bloodstream infection (BSI) in critically ill patients.
An observational study in a multidisciplinary ICU. Adult ICU patients, with ICU stay ≥96 h who were fed artificially were included. Patients were grouped into three categories of nutrition support routes: those on enteral nutrition alone (EN group), on parenteral nutrition alone (PN group) or on both EN and PN (EN+PN group). Illness severity, co-morbidities and routine laboratory values were recorded on ICU admission. Route of feeding, caloric, protein and immunonutrient intake was recorded daily for each patient. Nosocomial BSIs were identified by infection control surveillance methods. The incidence of BSI among the three groups was compared with Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional-hazards models.
A total of 249 patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences between groups in illness severity scores and in the time to nutritional support initiation (median time 48 [24-48] hours). The median daily caloric intake was significantly lower for the EN group than for patients of PN and EN+PN group (415 [157-687] kcal vs. 1077 [297-2087] kcal and 1292 [890-1819] kcal respectively, p < 0.001). BSI occurred in 69 (27.7%) patients. Bivariate Cox analysis revealed that APACHE II score and admission category were significantly associated to BSI development [hazard ratio (HR), 1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.09 and HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.18-1.15, respectively]. Presence of co-morbidities, SOFA score, hospital length of stay (LOS) before ICU admission, late initial feeding, serum albumin at admission, average daily maximum concentration of serum glucose, caloric, protein and immunonutrient intake did not affect the hazard of BSI development. After adjustment for the confounding variables, in a multivariate analysis, patients of the EN + PN group had lower incidence of BSI than the other two groups (HR 0.30; 95% CI 0.17-0.53), irrespective of the number of days of PN intake and the percentage of calories received from PN. There was no difference in the hazard for BSI development between the EN and PN group. Patients with EN + PN had a significantly longer ICU-LOS whereas mortality was not different among the three groups.
In this retrospective analysis of 249 consecutively enrolled ICU patients, we found that in critically ill patients EN + PN feeding strategy was associated with a significantly reduced hazard of BSI development, compared to EN or PN route of nutritional support.
营养支持措施与重症监护病房(ICU)获得性感染之间的关联是当前备受关注的领域。本研究的目的是确定不同的营养支持给药途径是否与危重症患者发生血流感染(BSI)的风险不同有关。
在一个多学科ICU进行一项观察性研究。纳入入住ICU≥96小时且接受人工喂养的成年ICU患者。患者被分为三类营养支持途径:仅接受肠内营养的患者(EN组)、仅接受肠外营养的患者(PN组)或同时接受肠内和肠外营养的患者(EN+PN组)。在患者入住ICU时记录疾病严重程度、合并症和常规实验室值。每天记录每位患者的喂养途径、热量、蛋白质和免疫营养物质摄入量。通过感染控制监测方法确定医院获得性BSI。使用Kaplan-Meier曲线和Cox比例风险模型比较三组患者的BSI发生率。
共有249例患者纳入分析。三组患者在疾病严重程度评分和开始营养支持的时间(中位时间48[24 - 48]小时)方面无显著差异。EN组患者的每日中位热量摄入量显著低于PN组和EN+PN组患者(分别为415[157 - 687]千卡 vs. 1077[297 - 2087]千卡和1292[890 - 1819]千卡,p < 0.001)。69例(27.7%)患者发生了BSI。二元Cox分析显示,急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE)II评分和入院类别与BSI的发生显著相关[风险比(HR),1.05;95%置信区间(CI),1.01 - 1.09和HR 0.45;95%CI 0.18 - 1.15,分别]。合并症的存在、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分、入住ICU前的住院时间、延迟开始喂养、入院时血清白蛋白、血清葡萄糖的每日平均最高浓度、热量、蛋白质和免疫营养物质摄入量均不影响BSI发生的风险。在对混杂变量进行调整后,多因素分析显示,EN+PN组患者的BSI发生率低于其他两组(HR 0.30;95%CI 0.17 - 0.53),无论肠外营养摄入天数和从肠外营养获得的热量百分比如何。EN组和PN组之间BSI发生的风险无差异。接受EN+PN的患者ICU住院时间显著更长,而三组患者的死亡率无差异。
在对249例连续入组的ICU患者进行的这项回顾性分析中,我们发现,与肠内营养或肠外营养营养支持途径相比,危重症患者采用EN+PN喂养策略与BSI发生风险显著降低相关。