4.2 Article

ASPEN Consensus Recommendations for Refeeding Syndrome

期刊

NUTRITION IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 178-195

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ncp.10474

关键词

consensus; magnesium; nutrition assessment; nutrition support; phosphorus; potassium; refeeding syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction In the spring of 2017, the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) Parenteral Nutrition Safety Committee and the Clinical Practice Committee convened an interprofessional task force to develop consensus recommendations for identifying patients with or at risk for refeeding syndrome (RS) and for avoiding and managing the condition. This report provides narrative review and consensus recommendations in hospitalized adult and pediatric populations. Methods Because of the variation in definitions and methods reported in the literature, a consensus process was developed. Subgroups of authors investigated specific issues through literature review. Summaries were presented to the entire group for discussion via email and teleconferences. Each section was then compiled into a master document, several revisions of which were reviewed by the committee. Findings/Recommendations This group proposes a new clinical definition, and criteria for stratifying risk with treatment and screening strategies. The authors propose that RS diagnostic criteria be stratified as follows: a decrease in any 1, 2, or 3 of serum phosphorus, potassium, and/or magnesium levels by 10%-20% (mild), 20%-30% (moderate), or >30% and/or organ dysfunction resulting from a decrease in any of these and/or due to thiamin deficiency (severe), occurring within 5 days of reintroduction of calories. Conclusions These consensus recommendations are intended to provide guidance regarding recognizing risk and identifying, stratifying, avoiding and managing RS. This consensus definition is additionally intended to be used as a basis for further research into the incidence, consequences, pathophysiology, avoidance, and treatment of RS.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据