Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Metropolitano, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.
Department of Pediatric Intensive Care, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Red de Salud Maternoinfantil y del Desarrollo (Red SAMID) ISCIII, Madrid, Spain.
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2019 Jan;20(1):e23-e29. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000001761.
To characterize the practices of nutritional support in Latin American and Spanish PICUs.
Survey with a questionnaire sent to Latin American Society of Pediatric Intensive Care members.
PICUs of participant hospitals.
Critically ill children between 1 month and 18 years old.
None.
Forty-seven surveys from 17 countries were analyzed. Sixty-seven percent of PICUs were from university-affiliated hospitals, with a median of 380 admissions/yr. Sixty-eight percent and 48.9% had a nutritional support team and nutritional support protocol, respectively. Seventy-five percent completed nutritional evaluations, with 34.2% at admission. PICUs with high-volume admissions were likely to have a nutritional support team (p < 0.005), and university-affiliated hospitals showed a trend of having a nutritional support team (p = 0.056). Measured, estimated, and ideal weights were used in 75%, 14.6%, and 10.4%, respectively. Energy requirements were calculated using Holliday & Segar and Schofield equations in 90% of the PICUs; 43% used correction factors. Only three PICUs had indirect calorimetry. At day 3 of initiation of nutritional support, 57.3% of PICUs provided at least 50% of the calculated energy requirement, and 91.5% at day 5. Protein needs were estimated according to American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism/European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition guidelines in 55.3% and 40.4%, respectively. Enteral nutrition was the preferred feeding method, initiated in 97.7% at 48 hours. The feeding route was gastric (82.9%), by bolus (42.5%) or continuous (57.4%). Monitoring methods included gastric residual measurement in 55.3%. Enteral nutrition was discontinued in 82.8% when gastric residual was 50% of the volume. Prokinetics were used in 68%. More than half of PICUs used parenteral nutrition, with 95.8% of them within 72 hours. Parenteral nutrition was administered by central vein in 93.6%. Undernourished children received parenteral nutrition sooner, whether or not enteral nutrition intolerance was present. When enteral nutrition was not tolerated beyond 72 hours, parenteral nutrition was started in 57.4%. Parenteral nutrition was initiated when enteral nutrition delivered less than 50% in 97%.
Nutritional practices are heterogeneous in Latin American PICUs, but the majority use nutritional support strategies consistent with international guidelines.
描述拉丁美洲和西班牙语国家儿科重症监护病房(PICU)的营养支持实践情况。
对拉丁美洲儿科学会重症监护成员进行问卷调查。
参与医院的 PICU。
1 个月至 18 岁的危重症儿童。
无。
对来自 17 个国家的 47 份调查问卷进行了分析。67%的 PICU 来自大学附属医院,每年中位数为 380 例住院患者。分别有 68%和 48.9%的 PICU 有营养支持团队和营养支持方案。75%的 PICU 完成了营养评估,其中 34.2%在入院时进行。高容量收治患者的 PICU 更有可能配备营养支持团队(p<0.005),而大学附属医院则有配备营养支持团队的趋势(p=0.056)。分别有 75%、14.6%和 10.4%的 PICU 使用实测体重、估计体重和理想体重。90%的 PICU 使用了 Holliday 和 Segar 和 Schofield 公式计算能量需求,43%的 PICU 使用了校正因子。只有 3 个 PICU 有间接测热法。在启动营养支持的第 3 天,57.3%的 PICU 提供了至少 50%的计算能量需求,第 5 天达到 91.5%。根据美国肠外和肠内营养学会(American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition)和欧洲临床营养与代谢学会/欧洲儿科学会胃肠病学、肝病学和营养学会(European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism/European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition)指南,分别有 55.3%和 40.4%的 PICU 估计蛋白质需求。肠内营养是首选的喂养方式,97.7%的 PICU 在 48 小时内开始使用。喂养途径为胃(82.9%),通过推注(42.5%)或连续输注(57.4%)。55.3%的 PICU 监测方法包括胃残留量测量。当胃残留量达到体积的 50%时,82.8%的 PICU 停止肠内营养。68%的 PICU 使用了促动力药物。超过一半的 PICU 使用了肠外营养,其中 95.8%在 72 小时内使用。肠外营养通过中心静脉给予,占 93.6%。无论是否存在肠内营养不耐受,营养不良的患儿都更早接受肠外营养。如果 72 小时后不能耐受肠内营养,57.4%的 PICU 开始使用肠外营养。当肠内营养提供的营养不足 50%时,97%的 PICU 开始使用肠外营养。
拉丁美洲的儿科重症监护病房的营养实践存在差异,但大多数都采用了符合国际指南的营养支持策略。