Compher Charlene, Bingham Angela L, McCall Michele, Patel Jayshil, Rice Todd W, Braunschweig Carol, McKeever Liam
Biobehavioral Health Sciences Department, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Department of Pharmacy, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, New Jersey, USA.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2022 Jan;46(1):12-41. doi: 10.1002/jpen.2267. Epub 2022 Jan 3.
This guideline updates recommendations from the 2016 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN)/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) critical care nutrition guideline for five foundational questions central to critical care nutrition support.
The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to develop and summarize evidence for clinical practice recommendations. Clinical outcomes were assessed for (1) higher vs lower energy dose, (2) higher vs lower protein dose, (3) exclusive isocaloric parenteral nutrition (PN) vs enteral nutrition (EN), (4) supplemental PN (SPN) plus EN vs EN alone, (5A) mixed-oil lipid injectable emulsions (ILEs) vs soybean oil, and (5B) fish oil (FO)-containing ILE vs non-FO ILE. To assess safety, weight-based energy intake and protein were plotted against hospital mortality.
Between January 1, 2001, and July 15, 2020, 2320 citations were identified and data were abstracted from 36 trials including 20,578 participants. Patients receiving FO had decreased pneumonia rates of uncertain clinical significance. Otherwise, there were no differences for any outcome in any question. Owing to a lack of certainty regarding harm, the energy prescription recommendation was decreased to 12-25 kcal/kg/day.
No differences in clinical outcomes were identified among numerous nutrition interventions, including higher energy or protein intake, isocaloric PN or EN, SPN, or different ILEs. As more consistent critical care nutrition support data become available, more precise recommendations will be possible. In the meantime, clinical judgment and close monitoring are needed. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.
本指南更新了2016年美国肠外和肠内营养学会(ASPEN)/危重病医学会(SCCM)危重病营养指南中关于危重病营养支持核心的五个基本问题的建议。
采用推荐分级、评估、制定和评价(GRADE)流程来制定和总结临床实践建议的证据。评估了以下临床结局:(1)高能量剂量与低能量剂量;(2)高蛋白剂量与低蛋白剂量;(3)全热量肠外营养(PN)与肠内营养(EN);(4)补充性PN(SPN)加EN与单纯EN;(5A)混合油脂肪乳注射液(ILEs)与大豆油;(5B)含鱼油(FO)的ILE与不含FO的ILE。为评估安全性,将基于体重的能量摄入和蛋白质摄入量与医院死亡率进行了对比。
在2001年1月1日至2020年7月15日期间,共识别出2320条引文,并从36项试验中提取了数据,这些试验包括20578名参与者。接受FO的患者肺炎发生率降低,但临床意义尚不确定。除此之外,任何问题的任何结局均无差异。由于对危害缺乏确定性,能量处方建议降至12 - 25千卡/千克/天。
在众多营养干预措施中,包括更高的能量或蛋白质摄入、等热量PN或EN、SPN或不同的ILEs,未发现临床结局存在差异。随着获得更一致的危重病营养支持数据,将有可能提出更精确的建议。与此同时,需要临床判断和密切监测。本文已获ASPEN董事会批准。