4.7 Review

Metabolic and nutritional support of critically ill patients: consensus and controversies

Journal

CRITICAL CARE
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-015-0737-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fresenius (Bad Homburg, Germany)
  2. Nestle (Vevey, Switzerland)
  3. Aguettant (Lyon, France)
  4. Baxter (Deerfield, IL, USA)
  5. B. Braun (Melsungen, Germany)
  6. Nutricia (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  7. Abbott (North Chicago, IL, USA)
  8. Baxter
  9. Danone (Paris, France)
  10. Fresenius
  11. Nestle
  12. Nutricia
  13. Abbott
  14. Fresenius Kabi
  15. B Braun, Cosmed (Rome, Italy)
  16. Novartis
  17. Nutricia-Numico
  18. Pfizer (New York, NY, USA)
  19. Solvay (Brussels, Belgium)
  20. Danone
  21. Grifols (Barcelona, Spain)
  22. GlaxoSmithKline (Brentford, UK)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The results of recent large-scale clinical trials have led us to review our understanding of the metabolic response to stress and the most appropriate means of managing nutrition in critically ill patients. This review presents an update in this field, identifying and discussing a number of areas for which consensus has been reached and others where controversy remains and presenting areas for future research. We discuss optimal calorie and protein intake, the incidence and management of re-feeding syndrome, the role of gastric residual volume monitoring, the place of supplemental parenteral nutrition when enteral feeding is deemed insufficient, the role of indirect calorimetry, and potential indications for several pharmaconutrients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available