4.3 Article

Nutritional Management of the Critically III Neonate: A Position Paper of the ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000003076

关键词

critical illness; neonatal intensive care unit; neonate; parenteral nutrition; premature infant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ESPGHAN-CoN conducted a systematic literature search on nutritional support in critically ill neonates, including studies on basic metabolism. Recommendations were based on review and discussion of evidence quality, requiring a consensus of 90% or more for final approval. This position paper provides clinical recommendations on nutritional support during different phases of critical illness in preterm and term neonates, while also identifying important research gaps.
Objectives: The nutritional management of critically ill term neonates and preterm infants varies widely, and controversies exist in regard to when to initiate nutrition, mode of feeding, energy requirements, and composition of enteral and parenteral feeds. Recommendations for nutritional support in critical illness are needed. Methods: The ESPGHAN Committee on Nutrition (ESPGHAN-CoN) conducted a systematic literature search on nutritional support in critically ill neonates, including studies on basic metabolism. The Medline database and the Cochrane Library were used in the search for relevant publications. The quality of evidence was reviewed and discussed before voting on recommendations, and a consensus of 90% or more was required for the final approval. Important research gaps were also identified. Results: This position paper provides clinical recommendations on nutritional support during different phases of critical illness in preterm and term neonates based on available literature and expert opinion. Conclusion: Basic research along with adequately powered trials are urgently needed to resolve key uncertainties on metabolism and nutrient requirements in this heterogeneous patient population.

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

4.3
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