4.7 Article

Negative impact of hypocaloric feeding and energy balance on clinical outcome in ICU patients

Journal

CLINICAL NUTRITION
Volume 24, Issue 4, Pages 502-509

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2005.03.006

Keywords

nutritional support; enteral nutrition; critically ill; malnutrition; outcome; infection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and aims: Critically ill patients with complicated evolution are frequently hypermetabolic, catabolic, and at risk of underfeeding. The study aimed at assessing the relationship between energy balance and outcome in critically ill patients. Methods: Prospective observational study conducted in consecutive patients staying >= 5 days in the surgical ICU of a University hospital. Demographic data, time to feeding, route, energy delivery, and outcome were recorded. Energy balance was calculated as energy delivery minus target. Data in means +/- SD, linear regressions between energy balance and outcome variables. Results: Forty eight patients aged 57 +/- 16 years were investigated; complete data are available in 669 days. Mechanical ventilation lasted 11 +/- 8 days, ICU stay 15 +/- 9 was days, and 30-days mortality was 38%. Time to feeding was 3.1 +/- 2.2 days. Enteral nutrition was the most frequent route with 433 days. Mean daily energy delivery was 1090 +/- 930 kcal. Combining enteral and parenteral nutrition achieved highest energy delivery. Cumulated energy balance was between -12,600 +/- 10,520kcal, and correlated with complications (P < 0.001), already after 1 week. Conclusion: Negative energy balances were correlated with increasing number of complications, particularly infections. Energy debt appears as a promising tool for nutritional follow-up, which should be further tested. Delaying initiation of nutritional support exposes the patients to energy deficits that cannot be compensated later on. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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