Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Untitled
Untitled
MEDICAL NUTRITION THERAPY GUIDELINES FOR CRITICALLY ILL ADULTS Internal Reviewers:
WORKING GROUP 2017
Dr. Shanti Rudra Deva Dr. Mohd Shukri Bin Jahit
Chairperson: Secretary: Consultant Intensivist Upper GI Surgeon
Kuala Lumpur Hospital Sungai Buloh Hospital
External Reviewers:
evidence table and suitable statements and recommendations were formulated. Consensus from the CHAPTER 2: NUTRITION SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT
working group was used in the areas of inconclusive or insufficient evidence.
In addition to the evidence-based practices, other factors such as cultural practices, individual patient 2.1. Nutrition Screening
conditions, preferences, availability of resources and cost were critically appraised in the process of
decision-making. Recommendation
The Evidence Grading System used is shown in Table 1 and 2. The level of evidence is based on • Nutritional risk screening (by using NUTRIC or modified-NUTRIC) is encouraged for all patients
the study design and the grade or recommendation of A, B or C is given based on the level of admitted into the ICU. Grade B
evidence. Grading will not be put forward if there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence.
2.1.1. NUTRIC Score
Table 1: Levels of Evidence a. Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill (NUTRIC) score is the only nutrition screening tool developed and
validated specifically in the critically ill population.14 (Appendix 2)
Level Type of Evidence
b. The original NUTRIC score has a score range from 1−10 and a score of ≥6 indicates high
1a Evidence from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials nutrition risk.14 (Table A 2.2)
c. The modified-NUTRIC score, which excludes IL-6 has been re-validated and has a score range
1b Evidence from at least one randomised controlled trial from 1−9. A score of ≥5 indicates high nutrition risk.15 (Table A 2.3)
d. Patients identified with a high nutrition risk are more likely to benefit from early full enteral
IIa Evidence from at least one well-designed controlled study without randomisation nutrition therapy.14,15
e. An observational study done in Singapore suggested that higher nutritional adequacy was
IIb Evidence from at least one other type of quasi-experimental/cohort study associated with lower 28 day mortality among mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with
high nutrition risk (high modified-NUTRIC score), but this was not observed in patients with low
Evidence from well-designed non-experimental descriptive studies such as comparative nutrition risk (low modified-NUTRIC score).16 However this does not preclude the clinical
III
studies, correlation studies and case control studies
importance of nutrition therapy in critically ill patients with low nutrition risk.
Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experiences
IV
of respected authorities
2.2. Nutrition Assessment
Source: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, 2012; Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, 2011
Recommendation
Table 2: Grades of Recommendation
• Nutrition assessment for critically ill patients should include an evaluation of comorbid conditions, GI
Level Type of Evidence Action Words tract function, and risk of aspiration. Grade C
• Use of traditional nutrition monitoring parameters should be considered to prevent further
At least one meta-analysis, systematic review, or randomised
Grade A deterioration of patients’ nutritional status. Grade C
controlled trial, or evidence rated as good and directly applicable to Recommended
Level 1a, 1b • IC is the gold standard for estimating energy requirement. The use of IC is encouraged whenever
the target population.
Evidence from well-conducted clinical trials, directly applicable to the available and feasible. Grade B However, in the absence of IC, there is insufficient evidence to
Grade B recommend any specific predictive equation.
target population, and demonstrating overall consistency of results;
Level IIa, IIb Encouraged
or evidence extrapolated from meta-analysis, systematic review, or • The use of any predictive equation or simplistic weight based equation (25−30 kcal/kg/d) should be
and III
non-randomised controlled trial. based on clinician familiarity, ease of use, and data availability. Grade C
Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical • In general, protein requirement in the critically ill patients should range from 1.2−2.0 g/kg actual body
Grade C Should be
experiences of respected authorities; indicates absence of directly weight per day and on-going evaluation of adequacy of protein provision should be performed
Level IV considered
applicable clinical studies of good quality. Grade B
Source: Modified from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), 2001
a. Traditional nutrition monitoring parameters such as anthropometric and serum protein markers
1.7 ETHICS OF NUTRITION THERAPY IN ICU PATIENTS
could be affected by several factors such as acute phase response, fluid status, and disease
Artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) are considered medical interventions. They are used as
severity rather than representation of nutritional status or adequacy of nutrition therapy.8
standard therapy in critically ill patients in the ICU. The decision to provide ANH should be carefully
b. These parameters are not consistently associated with patients’ clinical outcomes such as
weighed based on evidence, best practice, expected benefits, clinical experience and judgement
mortality, LOS and infectious complications.17
with priority for patient autonomy and dignity. A clear communication with the patient, family, and/or
c. The strength of clinical utility of physical assessments such as BMI, MUAC and SGA (for fat and
authorised surrogate decision maker is essential. Dietitian should participate in the decision-making
muscle assessment) in critically ill patients remained unclear.18
process with other ICU team members. ANH is not obligatory in cases of futile care or end-of-life
d. However, in order to keep track on the progress of patients’ nutritional status, traditional nutrition
situations.8,12,13 (Appendix 1)
monitoring parameter should still be evaluated. This allows prompt nutrition intervention to be
taken prior to further deterioration in patients’ nutritional status.
e. It is recommended to include an evaluation of co-morbid conditions, GI tract function, and risk of
aspiration as part of the nutrition assessment.8 (Appendix 3)
11 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 12
2.2.1. Energy Requirement Table 4: List of Predictive Equations for Calculation of Energy Requirement
a. The use of IC to determine energy requirement is encouraged when available and in the absence
Name of Equation Formula Equations
of factors that influence the accuracy of measurement.8 (Appendix 4)
b. In the absence of IC, several predictive equations or weight-based simplistic equation are Ventilator-dependent
available to determine energy requirement. The accuracy of predictive equations in comparison IJEE(v) = 1925 − 10(A) + 5(W) + 281 (G) + 292 (T) + 851 (B) [Original]25
with IC is summarised in a systematic review. (Appendix 5) IJEE(v) = 1784 − 11(A) + 5(W) + 244 (G) + 239(T) + 804(B) [Revised]26
Ireton-Jones Spontaneously Breathing
c. There is no strong evidence for the use of any of the predictive equations. Therefore, factors
equations IJEE(s) = 629 − 11 (A) + 25 (W) − 609 (O)25,26
such as clinician familiarity, ease of use, and availability of the data needed for the equation
impact equation selection.19 In fact, using either weight-based simplistic equation or predictive IJEE: kcal/day
IJEE=kcal/day; A=age (years); W=actual weight (kg); G=gender (male=1, female=0); T=trauma,
equation may not affect patients’ clinical outcomes.20 B=burn, O=obesity (if present=1, absent=0)
d. Simplistic weight-based equation (Table 3), or any published predictive equation (Table 4) may
be used to generate comparative standard to determine the best possible energy prescription. REE (kcal/d) = 8(weight) + 14(height) + 32(Ve) + 94 (T) − 483427
Faisy Equation
W=weight (kg), H=Height (cm), Ve=minute ventilation (litres per minute), T=temperature in °C
e. If height and/or weight is unavailable, predictive equation for height and weight may be used.
(Appendix 6 and 7). Body weight may need to be adjusted for amputee, paraplegic and PSU (2003b): Normal Weight (all age) OR <60 years old & Obese (BMI ≥30)23
quadriplegic patients (Appendix 8). RMR = Mifflin-St Jeor(0.96) + Tmax(167) + Ve(31) − 6212
Penn-State
University PSU (m): ≥60 years old & Obese (BMI ≥30)24,29
Table 3: BMI Category and Suggested Body Weight for Calculation of Energy Requirement RMR = Mifflin-St Jeor(0.71) + Tmax(85) + Ve(64) − 3085
equations*
Suggested Body Weight to be Used in Predictive Equation or *Mifflin St-Jeor equation for PSU30
Patients’ BMI Category *It was noted that the
Simplistic Weight-based Equation Male: 10 (weight) + 6.25(height) – 5(age) + 5
accuracy for PSU
Female: 10 (weight) + 6.25(height) – 5(age) – 161
• Use actual body weight# for predictive equation and ideal or usual body equation is reduced
Note: Estimated Energy in kcal/day; Weight=Actual Body Weight in Kg; H=Height in cm; A=Age in
when BMI is <20.5 or
Underweight weight for simplistic weight-based equation21 years; G=Gender (male=1, female=0); T=trauma, B=burn, O=obesity [BMI >27] (if present=1,
>45 28
(BMI: <18.5 kg/m2) • Refer to the refeeding syndrome protocol if patients are at high risk of absent=0); Tmax=maximum body temperature in the previous 24 hours (°C); Ve=minute ventilation
developing refeeding syndrome (litres per minute) at the time of measurement (read from the ventilator)
Normal weight
Use actual body weight#
(BMI: 18.5−24.9 kg/m2)
Overweight
Use ideal body weight (at BMI 22.5) or actual body weight#7 2.2.2. Protein Requirement
(BMI: 25.0−29.9 kg/m2)
a. Observational studies and small clinical trials suggested that protein adequacy was closely
• Use actual body weight#22 for Penn State 2003b23 (<60 years old) or
associated with positive clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.8,31–33 Adequate protein provision
Penn State (m)24 (≥60 years old), and provide 50%−70% of calculated
Obese caloric requirements. is important to improve body protein economy in order to enable new protein synthesis, optimise
(BMI ≥30.0 kg/m2) • Use actual body weight# in the formula 11−14 kcal/kg if BMI 30−50 immune function and regulate the inflammatory response in critically ill patients.31
kg/m2 b. Protein requirements of critically ill patients are expected to be in the range of 1.2−2.0 g/kg actual
• Use ideal body weight in the formula 22−25 kcal/kg if BMI >50 kg/m2 body weight per day and even higher in burn or multi-trauma patients.8 (Refer Chapter 5 for
Definitions: Actual body weight = patients’ current weight; Usual body weight = patients’ baseline weight prior to fluid resuscitation; protein requirement in organ failure or specific conditions)
Dry weight = patients’ normal weight without any extra fluid in the body; Ideal body weight = patients’ weight at BMI 22.5 kg/m2. c. Weight-based equations (e.g. 1.2−2.0 g/kg/d) or nitrogen balance studies can be used to monitor
#
In all critically ill patients following aggressive volume resuscitation or presented with oedema, anasarca or ascites, use d ry or usual
body weight where possible.8
adequacy of protein provision.8
13 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 14
Table 6: Energy and Protein Prescription for Critically Ill Obese Patients d. Prokinetic Agents
BMI (kg/m2) Energy Protein* • Prokinetic agents (metoclopramide and/or erythromycin) has been shown to improve gastric
emptying and EN tolerance in critically ill patients who are experiencing or at risk of feeding
2.0 g/kg ideal body weight
30−40 • Indirect calorimetry or predictive equations: intolerance (high gastric residual volume, emesis).8
per day8
50%−70% of energy requirements22 • The local ICU protocol recommend to use IV metoclopramide 10 mg every 6−8 hours and/or
40−50 • 11−14 kcal/kg ABW 8 IV erythromycin 125 mg every 6 hours or 250 mg every 12 hours.11
2.5 g/kg ideal body weight • In order to limit side effects, a slow infusion rate and dosages not exceeding a daily dose of 10
• Indirect calorimetry or predictive equations: mg metoclopramide every 6 hours is recommended, and the dosage should be adjusted in
per day8
>50 50%−70% of energy requirements22 case of renal failure.53
• 22−25 kcal/kg IBW 8 • If EN intolerance persists with the use of metoclopramide, 200 mg erythromycin every 12
*Protein provision may be commenced with 1.2 g/kg actual weight or 2−2.5 g/kg ideal body weight, and the goal protein intake may be hours should be added because the combination therapy (metoclopramide and erythromycin)
adjusted based on the results of nitrogen balance studies.22
is more effective.53
• Due to the concern of tachyphylaxis and safety, a maximum duration of 7 days is
3.1.4. Strategies to Optimise EN
recommended for either drug or combination.53
Recommendation • In the situation of treatment failure using prokinetic agents, post-pyloric EN should be
Strategies to optimise EN delivery are: considered.53
• Elevation of head of bed to 30°−45° is recommended during EN feeding. Grade A e. Post-pyloric EN
• Cessation of EN is not necessary when the GRV is less than 500 ml in the absence of other signs of • The routine use of post-pyloric feeding for critically ill patients is not recommended. There is
intolerance. If the GRV is between 250−500 ml, strategies to optimise EN tolerance should be no clear evidence of benefit in improving clinical outcomes such as mortality, duration of MV
implemented. Grade A and ICU LOS, although the risk of pneumonia and/or VAP is reduced.6,54–56
• Intermittent/continuous infusion should be considered when intolerant to bolus EN feeding. Grade C • Post-pyloric feeding should be considered for patients at high risk of EN intolerance,
• In patients who are experiencing or at risk of feed intolerance, the use of prokinetic agents regurgitation or aspiration (Table 7).9
(metoclopramide and/or erythromycin) is recommended. Grade A • In ICU where obtaining small bowel access is not feasible, post-pyloric feeding should be
• In patients who are at high risk for aspiration, repeatedly demonstrated high gastric residual or not considered for those patients who are not tolerating adequate amounts of EN intragastrically
tolerating adequate amount of EN via gastric feeding, the use of post-pyloric feeding is and repeatedly demonstrate high gastric residuals.9
recommended. Grade A
• Use of a feeding protocol that incorporates strategies to optimise EN delivery is recommended. Table 7: Risk of Aspiration/Feeding Intolerance
Grade A • on inotropes
• continuous infusion of sedatives or paralytic agents
a. Elevate Head of Bed High risk for intolerance to EN • patients with pre-existing high nasogastric drainage
• In critically ill patients receiving EN, elevation of head of bed to 30°−45° is recommended to • postoperative ileus
reduce risk of aspiration pneumonia. Where this is not possible, attempts to raise the head of • gastroparesis
the bed as much as possible should be considered.8,9
b. Gastric Residual Volume Monitoring High risk for regurgitation and aspiration • nursed in supine position
• Although the ASPEN 2016 guidelines recommend abandoning the practice of routine GRV
measurement, safety concerns were raised for abandoning the use of GRV in all critically ill f. Feeding Protocol (Refer Chapter 6)
patients.8 (Refer Section 4.2) • Given the favourable safety, feasibility considerations and low cost, a feeding protocol should
• The CCPG 2015 recommend a threshold of GRV between 250−500 ml and frequency of be incorporated to promote implementation of strategies to optimise delivery of enteral
checking GRV either 4 hourly or 8 hourly.9 The threshold for GRV may be set higher in nutrition and minimise risk associated with EN.9
medical ICU patients as compared to surgical ICU patients.50,51 g. Other recommendations to reduce risk of aspiration:8
• There is insufficient data to recommend returning gastric residual volumes up to a certain • Use chlorhexidine mouthwash twice a day.
threshold. An RCT reported returning of GRV up to 250 ml led to a lower incidence and • Reduce the level of sedation/analgesia whenever possible.
severity of delayed gastric emptying episodes without significant improvement in clinical • Minimise the duration of diagnostic tests and procedures to limit propagation of ileus and to
outcomes. 9,52 prevent insufficient nutrient delivery.
c. EN Feeding Mode
• There is insufficient evidence on modes of feeding (bolus, intermittent, cyclic or continuous
feeding) in relation to patients’ clinical outcomes.9 However, early aggressive EN via bolus
feeding is not recommended due to the concern of increased risk of aspiration pneumonia. 9
• Compared to bolus feeding, continuous EN infusion has shown greater EN volume delivery
and fewer interruptions.8
• Continuous/cyclic EN administration mode is required for post-pyloric tube feeding due to loss
of stomach reservoir capability.
17 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 18
b. Arginine • The use of probiotic/symbiotic was associated with a significant reduction in pneumonia and
Recommendation VAP,66–71 but inconclusive findings on infectious complications66,68,70,71 and no favourable
effects on ICU and hospital mortality, hospital LOS and incidence of diarrhoea.9,66–72
• The use of EN supplemented with arginine and other selected immunonutrients in critically ill patients
is not recommended. Grade A • Administration of probiotics alone may be more effective in reducing infections than symbiotic
mixtures, as limited symbiotic trial currently exists.71
• Generally, the administration of studied probiotic strains appeared to be safe in the ICU
• A meta-analysis reported that immune-modulating formula with arginine and other selected
population with the exception of Saccharomyces boulardii, which has been reported to cause
nutrients has no effect on mortality and hospital LOS, but has favourable effect in reducing
fungaemia in critically ill patients.73
new infectious complications among critically ill, burn, and trauma patients.57 However, the
beneficial effects of lowering infectious complications and hospital LOS were diminished when • An RCT in Malaysia found that the administration of 3 x 1010 CFU of Lactobacillus.
studies with fish oil were excluded in the subgroup analysis of ICU patients.57 The beneficial acidophilus, L. casei, L. lactis, Bifidobacterium bifidum, B.longum, and B. infantis with EN at a
effect of fish oil studies were confounded by the lipid concentration used in the control group, frequency of 2 times daily for 7 days to critically ill patients (n = 60) was associated with
larger treatment effect was found in trials using high-fat control formula.57–59 improvement of feeding tolerance, and reducing ICU LOS and duration of MV by 31% and
40%, respectively.74
• The recent meta-analysis by the CCPG 2015 showed that EN supplemented with arginine and
other selected nutrients have no effect on overall mortality, infectious complications, and ICU
as well as hospital LOS, but may possibly reduce duration of MV.9 f. Prebiotics and Fibre
• Given the lack of treatment benefit and the potential of harm among patients with severe Recommendation
sepsis,60–63 EN supplemented with arginine and other selected nutrient are not recommended • There is insufficient evidence to recommend the usage of prebiotics/fibre in the prevention or
to be used for critically ill patients. treatment of diarrhoea among critically ill patients.
• However, the use of fermentable soluble fibre as an adjunctive therapy to treat diarrhoea should be
c. Glutamine considered in situation appears to be applicable based on clinical judgement. Grade C
Recommendation
• The routine use of EN glutamine in critically ill patients is not recommended. Grade A • Although prebiotics/fibre has been shown to improve diarrhoea in non-critically ill patients, this
favourable effect has not been observed in critically ill patients.75–77
• There is insufficient evidence on the beneficial effect of enteral glutamine in critically ill • Several factors such as severity of illness, antibiotics therapy, GI dysfunction, abnormal
patients64 and potential harm has been reported in patients with shock and multi-organ failure motility patterns and impaired barrier integrity in critically ill patients may hinder the beneficial
in the REDOX study.9,65 effect of prebiotics/fibre.77
• On the contrary, the ASPEN 2016 guidelines recommend the routine use of fermentable
d. Fish Oils soluble fibre additive (such as FOS and inulin) in haemodynamically stable patients on
standard fibre free EN formula and provision of 10−20 g fermentable soluble fibre supplement
Recommendation
in divided doses over 24 hours as adjunctive therapy if there is evidence of diarrhoea.8,78
• There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation on the supplementation of fish oils alone
However, additional prebiotics to EN products that has already contained fibre/prebiotics
in critically ill patients. (Refer Chapter 5, recommendation for patients with ARDS/ALI, TBI and
remain inconclusive to minimise diarrhoea in critically ill patients.79
Trauma)
• There is insufficient data on favourable clinical outcomes in critically ill patient receiving fish
oils alone in EN.9
19 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 20
Recommendation Recommendation
• The routine use of PN glutamine in critically ill patients is not recommended. Grade A • Introduction of PN protocol and nutrition therapy team should be considered to maximise efficacy
• In situation where PN glutamine appears to be applicable based on clinical judgement, PN and reduce associated risk of PN. Grade C
glutamine supplementation is recommended only in highly selected patients, with at least the
conditions below fulfilled Grade A: a. Critically ill patients who are receiving PN should be monitored for the advancement of PN
- Dosage: 0.2−0.5 g/kg/day infusion rate, adverse metabolic effects (such as glycaemic control and hypertriglyceridaemia),
- Patient is not having hepatic or renal failure electrolyte profile, duration of PN, and transition to EN as feasible. 8
- Patient is not in a state of hemodynamic instability b. The use of PN protocol and nutrition therapy team may help to reduce inherent risk of
- After full PN nutrition (energy and protein) is achieved complications associated with the use of PN such as hyperglycaemia, electrolyte imbalances,
immune suppression, increased oxidative stress, and potential infectious morbidity.8
• Several recent trials and meta-analyses have raised concerns on the safety and efficacy of
PN glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients. 8 3.3. Trophic Feeding and Overfeeding
• However, a recent meta-analysis proposed that PN glutamine dipeptide supplementation may 3.3.1. Trophic Feeding
confer clinical benefits (reduced infectious complications, ICU LOS, Hospital LOS, and Recommendation
duration of MV) if it is delivered together with adequate parenteral energy and protein so that
• Trophic feeding (10−20 ml/hour) should be considered whenever possible for critically ill patients
the administered glutamine serves as precursor in various biosynthetic pathways rather than
whom EN is not feasible. Grade C
simply as a fuel.84
• Overfeeding (provision of >110 % of energy requirement) in critically ill patients is detrimental and
• In situation that provision of PN glutamine appears to be applicable based on clinical
should be avoided. Grade C
judgement, it should be given in dose between 0.2−0.5 g/kg/d.84–87 It should not be given to
patients in the acute phase of critical illness, with multi-organ failure (i.e. liver failure or kidney
a. Trophic or “trickle” feeding (usually defined as 10−20 mL/hour or 10−20 kcal/hour) is a small
failure) or un-resuscitated shock requiring significant vasopressor support. 84,87
volume of balanced EN insufficient for the patient’s nutritional needs but producing some positive
GI or systemic benefit.8,98
c. Fish oil lipid-injectable emulsions or IV fish oil
b. Trophic feeding may have the benefit in preserving intestinal epithelium, stimulating secretion of
Recommendation brush border enzymes, enhancing immune function, preserving epithelial tight cell junctions, and
• There is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of fish oil lipid-injectable emulsions in preventing bacterial translocation, despite not meeting daily caloric needs.99
PN and/or IV fish oil as a pharmaconutrient strategy in enterally fed critically ill patients. c. It may be sufficient to prevent mucosal atrophy and maintain gut integrity in patients with low- to
moderate- nutrition risk but may be insufficient to confer desired clinical outcomes for EN therapy
• The use of fish oil lipid-injectable emulsions in PN and/or IV fish oil as a pharmaconutrient in high-risk patients.8
strategy in enterally fed critically ill patients may reduce hospital LOS, but it has no mortality d. It may be considered when patient has a relative contraindication to early EN. (Refer Relative
benefits88–90 and the effect on infectious complications was inconsistent.88,90 Indication for PN)
Table 8: Contribution of Obligatory Calories from IV Drips and Medications CHAPTER 4: Monitoring and Evaluation
Non-nutritive Energy Source Approximate Calorie Contribution (kcal/ml) Patients on EN or PN are at risk for gut dysfunction and metabolic complications. Monitoring and
evaluation following nutrition intervention is important to manage the complications associated with EN or
Dextrose 1 g = 3.4 kcal PN in order to ensure optimal delivery of nutrition therapy.
• IV Dextrose 5% • 5 g dextrose / 100 ml water * 3.4 kcal = 0.17 kcal/ml
• IV Dextrose 10% • 10 g dextrose / 100 ml water * 3.4 kcal = 0.34 kcal/ml 4.1 Diarrhoea
Icodextrin 103
40 % *Diarrhoea? Continue similar feeding regime
No
43 % for 1.5% dextrose dialysate
CVVHDF104
45 % for 2.5 % dextrose dialysate Yes
Intermittent HD & CVVH Not applicable
No
*Definition of diarrhoea: daily faecal score above 15 by using the Kings’ Stool Chart (Appendix 15)105
**The efficacy of soluble fibre with prebiotics in managing diarrhoea in non-critically ill patients has been demonstrated, but the
evidence in critically ill patients remains inconclusive. 77
delivered.50,111,112 Routine withdrawal of GRV may increase the incidence of occlusion of enteral
feeding tube (especially in small-bore feeding tube).113
g. In institutes where GRV monitoring is still used to monitor EN tolerance, the acceptable GRV *GRV No
levels should be decided based on the available evidence and consensus among ICU team <250ml?
members. (Figure 2)
Yes *GRV 250-500 ml *GRV >500ml
Second episode
• * Return GRV up to 250 ml No
*GRV
• Add *erythromycin
>500ml?
• Continue the same feeding rate
Third episode
• * Return GRV up to 250 ml Yes
• Consider reducing EN rate by 50 %
(up to a minimum of 10 ml/hour) • Withhold EN for 6 hours
• Consider SPN after 7-10 days if EN • Add *erythromycin
provides < 60% of energy
requirement
No
*GRV
>500ml?
Yes
Yes *GRV No
<250ml? • Consider post-pyloric feeding
or
• Initiation of PN if EN is
withheld after 3 days for high
nutrition risk patients or 7
days for low nutrition risk
patients
Note:
• This protocol may be adapted and modified based on each institutional setting
• (*) indicates parameters may be altered depending on the consensus of the multidisciplinary team involved in critically ill
patients’ management.
Note:
* Patient with normal pre-feeding levels of potassium, calcium, phosphate and magnesium is still at high risk and might have whole
body depletion
** Provide only 5 kcal/kg/day in extreme cases (e.g. BMI less than 14 kg/m 2 or negligible intake for more than 15 days)
*** Pre-feeding correction of serum electrolytes is unnecessary. Replacement should be done in parallel with feeding intervention
• Reduce current nutrition support to 20 kcal/hour* for 48 hours Table 12: Management of GI Complications119
• Replace phosphate deficit
Complications Possible Causes Suggestions
• Strongly recommend daily administration of at least 100mg IV
Thiamine, other B-group vitamins and a balanced multivitamin and Rapid administration of EN Reduce feeding rate
trace element supplement as clinically appropriate
• Consider using energy-dense
• Recommend frequent monitoring and supplementation of low levels formula
Nausea and Vomiting Excessive volume of EN
of electrolytes such as potassium, magnesium, and others, as • Consider smaller more frequent
(Definition: vomit
clinically appropriate >1 time in 12 hours) bolus feeds or intermittent feeding
Review medications as possible causes
Medication induced and substitute with other medications
where clinically appropriate
No Serum phosphate Constipation
Insufficient fluid intake Increase fluid intake
>0.71 mmol/l? (Definition: absence Low residue feeding formula Use a fibre-enriched formula
of stool for 3 or more
consecutive days • Rule out intestinal obstruction, ileus,
Yes Decreased intestinal motility or colonic pseudo-obstruction
without mechanical
obstruction regardless • Treat with laxatives
• Increase nutrition support to 40 kcal/hour* for the next 24 hours of bowel sounds) Review medications (e.g. opioids,
Medication induced
• Continue frequent monitoring of phosphate dopamine, sedatives, anticholinergics)
• Continue vitamin supplementation
• Continue monitoring and supplementation of low electrolytes
No
Serum phosphate
>0.71 mmol/l?
Yes
*Feeding rate recommended is based on continuous feeding for 24 hours a day. Therefore, it may be adjusted based on feeding
practices of each institution 116
Recommendation
Monitoring critically ill patient who requires parenteral nutrition (PN) on a daily basis is recommended
(Table 13). Daily review on electrolytes, nutrient provision and fluid balance is important when • Reduction of EN energy should be considered as tolerance to oral intake improves and finally
establish a new patient on PN. discontinued when the patient is receiving >60% of target energy requirements from oral intake.
Grade C
Table 13: Monitoring and Evaluation of PN • Reduction of PN energy should be considered as tolerance to EN/oral intake improves and finally
discontinued when the patient is receiving >60% of target energy requirements from EN/oral intake.
Frequency120
Parameter To Monitor120 Action and Prevention Grade C
Daily Weekly
• Sudden weight gain may
a. Feeding transition is the shifting from one route of nutrition therapy to another, typically from PN
Fluid balance and indicate hypervolemia−to
Weight + to EN (Figure 5), PN to oral (Figure 6) or EN to oral (Figure 7). Feeding transition should be
nutritional status restrict total fluid intake and
planned and monitored appropriately in order to avoid under- or overfeeding.
monitor input and output.
b. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the initial rate during transition feeding. However, it
BMI Nutritional status + should be commenced gradually in order to assess tolerance.122
Signs of sepsis and fluid c. As the energy provision from the new route of nutrition therapy increases, the infusion rate of the
Temperature +
requirement pre-existing route of nutrition therapy should be reduced accordingly and be discontinued once
Hydration status and the calorie from the new route of nutrition therapy achieve >60% of target energy requirement.8
Fluid balance compare nutrition +
prescribed vs delivered
1-2 • Gradual initiation and
Glycaemic control times/day for advancement of PN
non-diabetic • Check glucose infusion rate
Blood glucose
Blood glucose target For diabetic, • Reduce dextrose
level <10mmol/L10 follow local concentration in PN
practice • Use insulin
Electrolytes
Electrolytes • Supplement electrolytes if
(Sodium,
disturbances or serum levels are low
Potassium &
refeeding syndrome • Monitor serum levels
Magnesium)
• Supplement phosphate into
PN if serum levels are low
Electrolytes • Gradual initiation and
Phosphate disturbances or + advancement of PN for
refeeding syndrome patients with refeeding
syndrome
• Monitor serum levels
• Reduce calories if the patient
Risk of fatty liver, is overfed
Liver function intrahepatic cholestasis, • Reduce dextrose infusion if
+ exceed the maximum
Test (LFT) cholecystitis and
oxidation rate
cholelithiasis.
• Replace part of the calories
from dextrose with lipid
Risk of
hypertriglyceridemia • Reduce lipid infusion rate
Triglycerides +
Triglyceride target level • Lengthen lipid infusion time
<4.6 mmol/L121
Infection markers • Strict protocol for prevention
(C-reactive of catheter related infections
Signs of infection + • Avoid hyperglycaemia
protein, white
• Reduce the omega-6 content
blood cells) of PN
33 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 34
Full PN
Full EN
Start EN at 10 ml/hour
Monitor Tolerance
No
Is oral intake
feasible?
No GRV
Return GRV
Yes Maintain same PN rate < 250ml?
Yes
Introduce oral food during meals times
and administer EN in between meals Return GRV
↑ EN by 10-20 ml/hour*
↓ PN by 10-20 ml/hour
Monitor Tolerance
No Return GRV
Tolerate
↓ EN by 10-20 ml/hour
oral food? (or keep at minimum
10ml/hour) No GRV
↑ PN rate accordingly < 250ml?
Yes Start prokinetic agents
Yes
• Increase oral food and reduce
Return GRV
EN accordingly ↑ EN by 10-20 ml/hour*
• Optimise oral intake with oral ↓ PN by 10-20 ml/hour
nutrition supplements
• Consider nocturnal EN
Monitor Tolerance
Return GRV
↓ EN by 10-20 ml/hour No
No GRV
(or keep at minimum < 250ml?
Does oral intake 10ml/hour)
alone provide 60% ↑ PN rate accordingly
Yes
requirement?
Return GRV
↑ EN by 10-20 ml/hour*
Yes (until achieve EN goal)
↓ PN by 10-20 ml/hour
(Stop PN once 60% of energy
requirement from EN is achieved)
• Stop EN
• Optimise oral intake to achieve requirement
Monitor Tolerance
Note: Note:
• Ensure adequate hydration during feeding transition. • The transition from PN to EN should be commenced at a low rate and increased gradually in order to ensure nutritional
• Premature cessation of EN before adequate oral intake is established should be avoided. adequacy and avoid overfeeding. The initial infusion rate and GRV threshold should be individualised based on patients’
condition.
• GRV >500ml may prompt EN cessation. Refer flowchart for GRV management.
Figure 5: Flow Chart of Feeding Transition from Tube Feeding to Oral • If GRV is persistently elevated despite the use of combination of prokinetic agents for 4-7 days, consider post-pyloric feeding
(Reference: Ferrie et al., 2015)119 • In this flow chart, EN 1 kcal/ml is used. Readjust feeding rate according to EN calorie density.
5.7. Sepsis
Nutrition Management Nutrition Recommendations
Recommendation
• Protein restriction may worsen nutrition status, decrease lean muscle
• Early EN within 24−48 hours of diagnosis of sepsis or as soon as haemodynamic stability is achieved
mass, and lead to less ammonia removal. Therefore, protein should not
should be considered. Grade C
be restricted as a management strategy aimed at reducing hepatic
encephalopathy.8 • The use of PN or SPN early in the acute phase of severe sepsis of septic shock is not recommended.
Grade C
• Protein restriction should be avoided and that protein be maintained
between 1.2 and 1.5 g of proteins per kg of body weight per day.159,160 • Either simplistic weight-based equations or published predictive equations may be used to predict
energy requirement. Grade C Protein recommendation of 1.2−2.0 g/kg/day should be considered.
• In patients with severe protein intolerant (hepatic encephalopathy grade
Grade C
III-IV), protein may be reduced for a short period of time to 0.5 g/kg/day,
but protein restriction should be avoided at all cost.159,160 • The routine use of immune-modulating formula is not recommended for patients with severe sepsis.
Grade A
• Early postoperative EN, as compared with maintenance IV fluid, was
associated with a trend towards lower rate of infections and improvement
of nitrogen balance.161,162 Nutrition Management Nutrition Recommendations
f. Liver Transplant
• Post-operative nutrition in transplant recipients is superior to the infusion Early EN should be given within 24−48 hours as soon as resuscitation is
of fluid and electrolytes with regard to time on the ventilator and LOS in a. Feeding Initiation
completed and the patient is hemodynamically stable.8
ICU.161,163 The use of PN or SPN early in the acute phase of severe sepsis or septic
shock is not recommended, regardless of patients’ degree of nutrition risk 8 as
b. Feeding Route this may result in longer hospital LOS, ICU LOS and durations of organ
5.6. Pulmonary Failure support, and increased ICU-acquired infection.81 Furthermore, it may also
Recommendation result in increased mortality.165,166
• There is inadequate evidence to recommend EN fish oil alone in patients with ARDS/ALI. Simplistic weight-based equations (25 kcal/kg/d) or published predictive
c. Energy Requirement
• No recommendation can be made at this time for the use of EN fish oils, borage oils and antioxidants in equations may be used to predict energy requirement.8
patients with ARDS/ALI due to conflicting data. d. Protein Requirement 1.2−2.0 g/kg/day.8
• Energy-dense EN formulations (1.5−2 kcal/mL) should be considered for patients with acute respiratory Immune-modulating formula should not be used routinely in patients with
failure, especially if in a state of volume overload. Grade C e. Formula Selection
severe sepsis.8
• The same energy and protein recommendation as the general critically ill patients should be considered *Refer to Appendix 13 for the definition of sepsis and septic shock and identifying patients with sepsis and septic shock.
in patients with ARDS/ALI. Grade C
6.2 Nutrition Therapy Protocols Table 16: Fasting/NBM Guide for Surgery/Procedures
a. Protocols are standard operating procedures based on complex guidelines or Surgery/Procedure Feeding Guide
recommendations. Nutrition therapy protocols are useful as reference to harmonise practices
among healthcare professionals in a particular institution or setting. Compliance to such • Allow clear fluid until 2 hours before procedure180
protocols with institution-specific strategies increases efficiency of patients care among Pre-operative • Allow nourishing fluid, enteral formula or solid until 6 hours before
healthcare professionals with varying level of experience and competency in nutrition therapy. procedure180–183
Nutrition therapy protocols also provide structure and accountability in patient care, facilitate • Provide EN within 24 hours of postoperative period except when noted
continuous quality improvement and decrease the clinical practice variance and errors in the presence of continued obstruction of GI tract, bowel discontinuity, increased
nutrition care process. risk for bowel ischemia, or on-going peritonitis8,180
Post-operative
b. The use of evidence-based feeding protocols had been shown to result in a significant shorter • EN may be feasible and managed individually in the presence of high-
hospital LOS and a trend toward reduce hospital mortality,172 although such results were output fistulas, severe malabsorption, shock, or severe sepsis if the patient
inconsistent.173 The presence of an ICU dietitian significantly facilitates the implementation of a remains stable for at least 24−36 hours8
feeding protocol.174 Procedures/diagnostic
No fasting unless involving airway or GI tract11
c. Feeding protocols with appropriate feeding algorithms such as in Figure 8 should be designed tests
and implemented to improve the percentage of patients achieving the recommended goal of Planned extubation No fasting except high risk for re-intubation/anticipated difficult airway11
nutritional therapy. Note: 180
d. The ASPEN 2016 guidelines recommend several feeding protocols, which includes: • Clear fluids include water, pulp-free juice, clear tea, black coffee and clear carbohydrate-rich drinks
• Volume-based feeding protocol • Solids include solid food or light meal, sweets, nonhuman milk (including milk in tea and coffee)
- Volume-based feeding is a strategy in which 24 hours volumes are targeted instead of
hourly rates. Nurses are empowered to increase feeding rates to compensate for volume
lost while EN is held.175,176 6.4 Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS)
- The use of volume-based feeding protocol had been shown to be safe and increase a. ERAS is a multimodal perioperative care pathway designed to reduce the patient’s stress
volume of nutrition delivered.175–177 response in reaction to surgical procedure, facilitates maintenance of preoperative body
- The target calorie for volume-based feeding should be based on nutritional risk status. compositions and organ function, and, in doing so, achieves early recovery.184
• Top-down multi strategy protocols b. A meta-analysis of RCT for Enhanced Recovery Program in Colorectal Surgery showed that the
- Using multiple different strategies simultaneously at the time of EN initiation to enhance ERAS pathway was associated with reduction of overall morbidity and shortened hospital stay
tolerance and increase delivery of EN, removing individual strategies as tolerance without increasing admission rate. A significant reduction in nonsurgical complications was noted,
improves over the first few days of infusion.8 while the effect on surgical complications was less pronounced.185
- The strategies typically include the use of volume-based feeding, prophylactic prokinetic c. Refer to Appendix 16 for the components of nutrition management strategies in ERAS.
agents and early supplementation of modular protein, with discontinuation of prokinetic
agents in patients who demonstrate lack of need.8,175
• The use of nurse-driven EN protocols to increase EN delivery has been shown to reduce the
incidence of nosocomial infections.8,178
e. Feeding protocol should address:8
• Indication for EN and PN
• Goal EN/PN infusion rate
• Feeding progression guide
• Handling of GRVs
• Feeding transitions
• Amount and frequency of flushes
• Feeding related complication management guide
• Strategies to improve feeding delivery
APPENDICES
Figure 8: Flow Chart for EN, PN, SPN and Trophic Feeding Initiation
0−4
5−9
0−5
6−10
Points
Points
Sum of
Sum of
Age (year)
Number of Co-morbidities
Category
Category
Low Score
Low Score
High Score
High Score
Variable
ventilation)
ventilation)
nutrition therapy
nutrition therapy
Table A 2.2: NUTRIC Score Scoring System (With IL-6)
Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II)
49 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults
Explanation
Explanation
≥10
≥28
≥75
0−1
6−9
<15
<50
≥400
0−<1
20−28
15−19
50−74
Range
0−<400
1
1
0
1
2
1
3
2
1
2
1
Points
Table A 2.4: Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II)
Normal
2017
Organ insufficiency or immuno-compromised state must have been evident prior to this hospital admission and conform to the following criteria:
LIVER Biopsy proven cirrhosis & documented portal hypertension; past upper GI bleeding attributed to portal hypertension; or prior episodes of hepatic
failure/encephalopathy/coma
CARDIOVASCULAR New York Heart Association Class IV
RESPIRATORY Chronic restrictive, obstructive, or vascular disease resulting in severe exercise restriction, i.e,, unable to climb stairs or perform household duties;
or documented chronic hypoxia, hypercapnia, secondary polycythaemia, severe pulmonary hypertension (>40 mm Hg), or respirator dependency
RENAL Receiving chronic dialysis
IMMUNO- The patient has received therapy that suppresses resistance to infection, e.g., immuno-suppression, chemotherapy, radiation, long term/recent
COMPROMISED high dose steroids, or has a disease that is sufficiently advanced to suppress resistance to infection, e.g., leukaemia, lymphoma, AIDS
(Source: Knaus et al., 1985216)
Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 50
Table A 2.5: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)
Score
0 1 2 3 4
Organ system Variable
≥400 <400 <300 <200 (26.7) with <100 (13.3) with
Respiration PaO2/FiO2, mm Hg (kPa)
(53.3) (53.3) (40) respiratory support respiratory support
Coagulation Platelet, 103/μL ≥150 <150 <100 <50 <20
20-32 33-101 102-204
Liver Bilirubin, μmol/L (mg/dL) <20 (1.2) >204 (>12.0)
(1.2-1.9) (2.0-5.9) (6.0-11.9)
Dopamine < 5, or Dopamine 5.1-15, or Dopamine >15, or
Cardiovascular Blood Pressure Status MAP ≥70 mm Hg MAP <70 mm Hg Dobutamine Epinephrine ≤0.1, or Epinephrine >0.1, or
(any dose) b Norepinephrine ≤0.1b Norepinephrine >0.1b
Central nervous
Glasgow Coma Scale scorec 15 13-14 10-12 6-9 3-5
system
<110 110-170 171-299 300-440 >440
Creatinine, μmol/L (mg/dL) or
Renal (1.2) (1.2-1.9) (2.0-3.4) (3.5-4.9) (5.0)
Total Urine Output (ml/24h) <500 <200
b
Abbreviations: FiO2, fraction of inspired oxygen; MAP, mean arterial pressure; Catecholamine doses are given as μg kg-1 min-1 for at least 1 h
c
PaO2, partial pressure of oxygen Glasgow Coma Scale score range from 3-15; higher score
(Source: Vincent et al.,1996186 and Singer et al.,2016187) indicates better neurological function
51 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults
2017
Co-morbidities: Yes No
Appendix 3: List of GI Symptoms Appendix 4: Checkpoints for Successful IC Measurement for Mechanically Ventilated Patients
Diarrhoea diagnosis based on the King’s Stool Chart 105 • FiO2 >60%
b) Respiration • PEEP >10 cm H2O
suspected or radiologically confirmed bowel dilatation in any bowel • Peak airway pressure >30 cm H2O
Bowel distension
segment • Unstable sedation and/or analgesia
c) Agitation
GI bleeding visible appearance of blood in vomits, nasogastric aspirate, or stool • Uncontrolled seizure and/or involuntary movement
• Air leaks from ventilator circuit and/or endotracheal tube cuff
• Air leaks from chest drains
Intra-abdominal hypertension mean intra-abdominal pressure of the day ≥12 mmHg d) Treatments
• Special consideration: Renal replacement therapy, liver support
mean intra-abdominal pressure 20 mmHg with new organ therapy, ECMO
Abdominal compartment dysfunction or failure, with intra-abdominal pressure measured in the • >±1 ºC change of body temperature
syndrome supine position with zero-point at mid-axillary line with a maximal e) Immediate changes
• Change of drug dose: catecholamine, sedatives, analgesics, etc.
instillation volume of 25 ml (<60 min before IC)
• Invasive procedures, mobilization, physical exercise
(Adapted from Reitnam Blaser et al., 2013188)
Before Measurement
• Warm up and calibration (as required)
f) Device • Secure connections of tubes and components
• Search for any air leaks
• Continuous feeding preferred
g) Feeding status • If fed, record: energy prescription and intake, duration (hours)
since last meal
• Record: ventilation setting
h) Environment • Maintain room temperature at 20−25 ºC
• Ensure comfortable body position
During and After Measurement
• Duration: 30 minutes or until stable state (calculated coefficient of
variation, CV <5% for VO2 and VCO2 for >5 minutes, CV of <10%
for 25 minutes)
i) Quality of • RQ: <0.7 and >1.0 may suggest inadequate measurement
Measurement • Record:
o agitation and body movements
o any events affecting breathing pattern
o changes in vasoactive drugs
• Disinfect device and components in contact with patients
j) Disinfection
• Discard single use components
(Source: Oshima et al,. 2016 189)
PSU
Total
Fixed
Other
were shown:
prescription
Ireton-Jones
Equation
Predictive
Harris-Benedict
8 (21%)
6 (27%)
60 (38%)
31 (54%)
13 (39%)
Underestimation:
<90% of IC Values
Number of Estimates
4 (7%)
0 (0%)
Values
7 (18%)
4 (40%)
4 (12%)
19 (12%)
Number of
Overestimation:
Estimate >110% of IC
55 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults
57
38
10
22
33
160
IC Measurement
Number of Predictive
Equations Compared to
From a systematic review comparing the accuracy of predictive equation with IC, the following results
2017
Population
Variables Age Range n Equations Reference
Studied
Men: 48 kg for the first 152.4 cm + 1.1 kg for each additional cm.
Hamwi, 1964199
Ideal Body Weight (IBW) Women: 45 kg for the first 152.4 cm + 0.9 kg for each additional cm
Men: 50 kg + 2.3 kg x [height(in) – 60]
Devine, 1974200
Adults Women: 45.5 kg + 2.3 kg x [height(in) – 60]
**1 inch = 2.54cm; 1 foot = 30.48cm; 1 pound = 0.45kg
Men: 0.32810 W (kg) + 0.33929 H (cm) – 29.5336
Hume 1966201
Women: 0.29569 W (kg) + 0.41813 H (cm) – 43.2933
Lean Body Weight FFM = ABW (kg) x 0.01 x (100 – [64.5 – 848 x height2 / ABW+ 0.079 x Weijs,
age – 16.4 x sex + 0.05 x sex x age + 39.0 x sex x height 2 / ABW]) Sauerwein &
Adults
**FFM: fat-free mass in kg, ABW: actual body weight in kg, height in m, age in years,
Kondrup,
sex: male=1, female=0 2012202
Actual Body Weight (ABW)
Mid-arm United States ≥18 years old
1012a Men: (3.29 x MAC) + (0.43 x height) – 93.2 Crandall et al.,
circumference & adults weight at
459b Women: (2.15 x MAC) + (0.54 x height) – 64.6 2009203
height least 100 kg
White (55%),
Knee height & Hispanic (21%),
18−97 years old Men: (1.10 x KH) + (3.07 x MAC) – 75.81 Ross Lab / Lin
mid-arm Asian (11%), 235
Women: (1.01 x KH) + (2.81 x MAC) – 66.04 et al.,2009204
circumference African American
adults (3%)
Abdominal & United States ≥18 years old
208a Men: (0.78 x AC) + (1.06 x TC) – 47.8 Buckley et al.,
Thigh adults
99b Women: (0.47 x AC) + (1.30 x TC) – 40.2 2011205
57 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults
circumference
Note: Weight is calculated in kilograms (kg). Height, mid-arm circumference (MAC), knee height (KH), abdominal circumference (AC) and thigh circumference (TC) are calculated in centim etres (cm)
a
Derivation bValidation
2017
2017
Foot
Hand
Thigh
Entire leg
Upper arm
Entire arm
Body Parts
Condition
Paraplegics
Quadriplegics
Lower leg (including foot)
Lower arm (including hand)
5%−10%
10%−15%
16%
5.9%
0.7%
1.5%
2.7%
2.3%
5.0%
10.1%
4.5%
9.7%
1.4%
2.7%
1.6%
0.6%
4.9%
15.6%
BAPEN, 2011207
Appendix 8: Adjustment of Body Weight for Amputee, Paraplegic and Quadriplegic
To calculate the estimated body weight for individuals who are paralyzed, first determine the ideal
body weight for the non-paralyzed individual then subtract the estimated percentage of weight
Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 58
•
•
•
•
•
patients.43,209
MAP ≥65 mm Hg, with higher target for patients with hypertension and renal impairment
a. Haemodynamic instability is a clinical state represents either a perfusion failure with clinical
Assess fluid responsiveness (Pulse pressure variation [PPV] >13% and Stroke Volume
e. In critically ill patients presented with haemodynamic instability, early EN ought to be started when
range of haemodynamic goals used were: MAP 60–100 mmHg, central venous pressure 6–13
c. In a systematic review of haemodynamic goals used in clinical trials in patients with sepsis, the
b. Various methods have been used for the clinical assessment of haemodynamically unstable
mmHg, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure 13–17 mmHg, and cardiac index 3–6 l/min/m 2. All
manifestations of circulatory shock and/or heart failure, or one or more out-of-threshold
2017
Appendix 10 (a): Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Tolerable Upper Intake Level, Vitamins
Panto-
2017
Life Stage Vitamin A Vitamin Vitamin Vitamin E Niacin Vitamin Folate Vitamin Choline Carote-
Vitamin K Thiamine Riboflavin thenic Biotin
Group (μg/d)a C (mg/d) D (μg/d) (mg/d)b,c (mg/d)c B6 (mg/d) (μg/d)c B12 (g/d) noidsd
Acid
Infants
0 to 6 mo 600 NDe 25 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
6 to 12 mo 600 ND 38 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Children
1–3 y 600 400 63 200 ND ND ND 10 30 300 ND ND ND 1.0 ND
4–8 y 900 650 75 300 ND ND ND 15 40 400 ND ND ND 1.0 ND
Males
9–13 y 1,700 1,200 100 600 ND ND ND 20 60 600 ND ND ND 2.0 ND
14–18 y 2,800 1,800 100 800 ND ND ND 30 80 800 ND ND ND 3.0 ND
19–30 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
31–50 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
51–70 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
>70 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
Females
9–13 y 1,700 1,200 100 600 ND ND ND 20 60 600 ND ND ND 2.0 ND
14–18 y 2,800 1,800 100 800 ND ND ND 30 80 800 ND ND ND 3.0 ND
19–30 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
31–50 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
51–70 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
>70 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
Pregnancy
14–18 y 2,800 1,800 100 800 ND ND ND 30 80 800 ND ND ND 3.0 ND
19–30 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
31–50 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
Lactation
14–18 y 2,800 1,800 100 800 ND ND ND 30 80 800 ND ND ND 3.0 ND
19–30 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
31–50 y 3,000 2,000 100 1,000 ND ND ND 35 100 1,000 ND ND ND 3.5 ND
NOTE: A Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) is the highest level of daily nutrient intake that is likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects to almost all individuals in the general population. Unless
otherwise specified, the UL represents total intake from food, water, and supplements. Due to a lack of suitable data, ULs could not be established for vitamin K, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin B12, pantothenic
acid, biotin, and carotenoids. In the absence of a UL, extra caution may be warranted in consuming levels above recommended i ntakes. Members of the general population should be advised not to
routinely exceed the UL. The UL is not meant to apply to individuals who are treated with the nutrient under medical supervis ion or to individuals with predisposing conditions that modify their sensitivity to
the nutrient.
a
As preformed vitamin A only.
b
As α-tocopherol; applies to any form of supplemental α-tocopherol.
c
The ULs for vitamin E, niacin, and folate apply to synthetic forms obtained from supplements, fortified foods, or a combinati on of the two.
d
β-Carotene supplements are advised only to serve as a provitamin A source for individuals at risk of vitamin A deficiency.
e
ND = Not determinable due to lack of data of adverse effects in this age group and concern with regard to lack of ability to handle excess amounts. Source of intake should be from food only to
prevent high levels of intake.
SOURCES: Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorous, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride (1997); Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamine, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12,
Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline (1998); Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids (2000); Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron,
Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc (2001); and Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D (2011). These reports may be accessed
via www.nap.edu.
(Source: Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academies 210)
Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 60
Appendix 10 (b): Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Tolerable Upper Intake Level, Elements
Cal- Co- Fluo- Magne- Manga Molyb- Phos- Sele- Vana- Sod- Chlo-
Life Stage Arse- Boron Chro- Iodine Iron Nickel Sili- Zinc
cium pper ride sium -nese denum phorus nium dium ium ride
Group nica (mg/d) mium (μg/d) (mg/d) (mg/d) conc (mg/d)
(mg/d) (μg/d) (mg/d) (mg/d)b (mg/d) (μg/d) (g/d) (μg/d) (mg/d)d (g/d) (g/d)
Infants
0 to 6 mo NDe ND 1,000 ND ND 0.7 ND 40 ND ND ND ND ND 45 ND ND 4 ND ND
6 to 12 mo ND ND 1,500 ND ND 0.9 ND 40 ND ND ND ND ND 60 ND ND 5 ND ND
Children
1–3 y ND 3 2,500 ND 1,000 1.3 200 40 65 2 300 0.2 3 90 ND ND 7 1.5 2.3
4–8 y ND 6 2,500 ND 3,000 2.2 300 40 110 3 600 0.3 3 150 ND ND 12 1.9 2.9
Males
9–13 y ND 11 3,000 ND 5,000 10 600 40 350 6 1,100 0.6 4 280 ND ND 23 2.2 3.4
14–18 y ND 17 3,000 ND 8,000 10 900 45 350 9 1,700 1.0 4 400 ND ND 34 2.3 3.6
19–30 y ND 20 2,500 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 4 400 ND 1.8 40 2.3 3.6
31–50 y ND 20 2,500 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 4 400 ND 1.8 40 2.3 3.6
51–70 y ND 20 2,000 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 4 400 ND 1.8 40 2.3 3.6
>70 y ND 20 2,000 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 3 400 ND 1.8 40 2.3 3.6
Females
9–13 y ND 11 3,000 ND 5,000 10 600 40 350 6 1,100 0.6 4 280 ND ND 23 2.2 3.4
14–18 y ND 17 3,000 ND 8,000 10 900 45 350 9 1,700 1.0 4 400 ND ND 34 2.3 3.6
19–30 y ND 20 2,500 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 4 400 ND 1.8 40 2.3 3.6
31–50 y ND 20 2,500 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 4 400 ND 1.8 40 2.3 3.6
51–70 y ND 20 2,000 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 4 400 ND 1.8 40 2.3 3.6
>70 y ND 20 2,000 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 3 400 ND 1.8 40 2.3 3.6
Pregnancy
14–18 y ND 17 3,000 ND 8,000 10 900 45 350 9 1,700 1.0 3.5 400 ND ND 34 2.3 3.6
19–30 y ND 20 2,500 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 3.5 400 ND ND 40 2.3 3.6
31–50 y ND 20 2,500 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 3.5 400 ND ND 40 2.3 3.6
Lactation
14–18 y ND 17 3,000 ND 8,000 10 900 45 350 9 1,700 1.0 4 400 ND ND 34 2.3 3.6
19–30 y ND 20 2,500 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 4 400 ND ND 40 2.3 3.6
31–50 y ND 20 2,500 ND 10,000 10 1,100 45 350 11 2,000 1.0 4 400 ND ND 40 2.3 3.6
NOTE: A Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) is the highest level of daily nutrient intake that is likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects to almost all individuals in the general population. Unless
otherwise specified, the UL represents total intake from food, water, and supplements. Due to a lack of suitable data, ULs could not be established for vitamin K, thiamin, riboflavin, vitamin B12, pantothenic
61 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults
acid, biotin, and carotenoids. In the absence of a UL, extra caution may be warranted in consuming levels above recommended i ntakes. Members of the general population should be advised not to
routinely exceed the UL. The UL is not meant to apply to individuals who are treated with the nutrient under medical supervision or to indi viduals with predisposing conditions that modify their sensitivity to
the nutrient.
a
Although the UL was not determined for arsenic, there is no justification for adding arsenic to food or supplements.
b
The ULs for magnesium represent intake from a pharmacological agent only and do not include intake from food and water.
c
Although silicon has not been shown to cause adverse effects in humans, there is no justification for adding silicon to supplements.
d
Although vanadium in food has not been shown to cause adverse effects in humans, there is no justification for adding vanadiu m to food and vanadium supplements should be used with caution.
The UL is based on adverse effects in laboratory animals and this data could be used to set a UL for adults but not children and adolescents.
e
ND = Not determinable due to lack of data of adverse effects in this age group and concern with regard to l ack of ability to handle excess amounts. Source of intake should be from food only to
prevent high levels of intake.
SOURCES: Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorous, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride (1997); Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamine, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12,
Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline (1998); Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids (2000); Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron,
Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc (2001); and Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D (2011). These reports may be accessed
via www.nap.edu.
(Source: Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academies 210)
2017
2017
Toronto
Modified
Schofield
Formula211
Equation149
Name of
Equation
procedures.211
Age
Injury Factor:
injury itself as day zero.
factors or activity factors
30-60 years
18-30 years
15-18 years
• 25-90%:
• 10-25%:
Over 60 years
W = weight in kg
• Mobile in ward:
• Up to 10% burn:
kcals = Calorie intake in past 24 hours
1.2-1.7
1.1-1.3
1.0-1.1
1.1
1.25
Appendix 11: List of Predictive Energy Equations for Burns
8.1W + 842
9.0W + 656
14.8W + 485
13.3W + 690
11.4W + 870
15.0W + 690
11.7W + 585
17.6W + 656
Energy Requirement = Basal Metabolic Rate x Injury Factor x Activity Factor
Harris Benedict = Basal requirements in calories using the Harris Benedict equation with no stress
No. of days post-burn = The number of days after the burn injury is sustained using the day of burn
agitation, position changes, family visiting, suctioning, face and mouth care, and minor
TORONTO FORMULA x 1.2 (activity factor) if patient has dressing changes, physiotherapy,
REE (kcal) = -4343 + (10.5 x %TBSA burn injury) + (0.23 x kcals) + (0.84 x
Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 62
63 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 64
Appendix 12: Micronutrients Requirement for Burns Patients149,212 Appendix 13: Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, Sepsis and Septic Shock
Daily Dose a) Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome, Sepsis and Septic Shock
Vitamins/Minerals
EN PN i. Systemic inflammatory Response Syndrome can be identified based on two or more of below
• Water-soluble Vitamins criteria:213
Thiamine (B1) 10 mg 10 mg SIRS Criteria:
Riboflavin (B2) 10 mg 10 mg Temperature >38 °C or <36 °C
Heart rate >90/min
Niacin (B3) 200 mg 200 mg Respiratory rate >20/min or PaCO2 <32 mmHg (4.3kPa)
Pantothenic acid 100 mg 100 mg White blood cell count >12 000/mm 3 or <4000/mm3 or >10% immature bands
Biotin 5 mg 5 mg ii. Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to
Pyridoxine (B6) 20 mg 20 mg infection or is a life-threatening condition that arises when the body’s response to an infection
injuries its own tissues and organs.187
Folic acid 2 mg 2 mg
iii. Organ dysfunction can be identified as an acute change in total SOFA score ≥2 point that
Cobalamin (B12) 20 μg 20 μg caused by infection.187
Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid) 2000 mg 2000 mg iv. Septic Shock is a subset of sepsis in which underlying circulatory and cellular/metabolic
abnormalities are profound enough to substantially increase mortality.187
• Fat-soluble Vitamins
v. Patient with septic shock can be identified with a clinical construct of sepsis with persisting
Vitamin A (retinol) 25,000 U 10,000 U hypotension requiring vasopressors to maintain MAP ≥65 mmHg and having a serum lactate
β-carotene 50 mg - level ≥2 mmol/L (18 mg/L) despite adequate volume resuscitation.187
Vitamin E 40-1000 mg -
b) Identifying Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock187
• Minerals
Copper 2−3 mg Patient with suspected infection
Manganese 25−50 mg
Selenium 100 mg
Zinc 50 mg qSOFA ≥2? No Sepsis still No
(see *A) suspected?
Yes
Yes
Assess for evidence of Monitor clinical condition
organ dysfunction re-evaluate for possible
sepsis if clinically indicated
No
SOFA ≥2?
(see *B)
*B SOFA Variables:
PaO2/FIO2 ratio
Glasgow Coma Scale score
Despite adequate fluid resuscitation: Mean arterial pressure
1. Vasopressors required to Administration of vasopressors with type and dose
No rate of infusion
maintain MAP ≥65mm Hg Serum creatinine or urine output
AND Bilirubin
2. Serum lactate level ≥2mmol/L? Platelet count
Appendix 14: Common Medications Associated with Diarrhoea in Enterally Fed Patients Appendix 15: King’s Stool Chart
Others: Misoprostol 1 2 3
Vancomycin (oral), Ampicillin, Amoxicillin, Cephalexin, Cefexime,
Antibiotics
Erythromycin, Azithromycin, Clarithromycin, Ciprofloxacin
Cholinergics Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine, Bethanechol, Pyridostigmine
Appendix 16: Components of Nutrition Management Strategies in ERAS181–183 Appendix 17: Nutrition Care Process (NCP)
(a) Nutrition Assessment
Component in
Nutrition Management Strategies
ERAS Component Assessments
• Clear fluids are allowed up to 2 h and solids up to 6 h prior to induction of
Preoperative Fasting Food and Nutrition- i. History of nutrient intake (macro- and micronutrients)
anaesthesia
Related History ii. Amount or type of nutrition/fluids intake via the GI tract
• Preoperative 400 ml of 12.5% drink with mainly maltodextrin is
iii. Amount or type of nutrition/fluids intake intravenously
recommended preoperatively (2−3 hours before surgery).
iv. Calories form non-nutritive source such as dextrose and propofol
• Evidence shows that preoperative CHO loading is associated with the
Preoperative CHO v. Adequacy of nutrient intake/nutrient delivery
following benefits:
Loading vi. Disease-specific nutrient requirements
Ø reduction in postoperative thirst, hunger, anxiety and insulin resistance
vii. Food allergies/intolerances
Ø accelerated recovery
viii. Appropriateness of nutrition support therapy for the patient
Ø shorter hospital LOS (in major abdominal surgery patients)
ix. Medication and Complementary/Alternative Medicine use that may
• Carbohydrate treatment can be given along with the diabetic medication. impact nutritional status
Diabetic patients • However, this recommendation is only given for elective colonic surgery; Anthropometric i. Weight (preadmission), dry weight, height
not for elective rectal or pelvic surgery or pancreaticoduodenectomy Measurements: ii. Weight change
Strategies to iii. BMI
Reduce • Risk factor for PONV are being female, non-smoker, history of motion iv. Estimated weight after amputation/paralysis
Postoperative sickness and given opioid postoperatively v. Estimation of weight/height based on predictive equations (if data on
Nausea and • Minimise preoperative fasting, CHO loading and adequate hydration weight and height is not available)
Vomiting (PONV) Biochemical Data, i. Biochemical indices (white blood counts, C-reactive protein, renal
• Preoperatively, conduct careful history-taking directed towards recent Medical Tests and profile, glucose, electrolytes, arterial blood gases, lipid profile, serum
significant unplanned weight loss and reduced nutritional intake Procedures: protein profile, others as warranted by clinical condition)
• Normal food is allowed before and after surgery ii. Implications of diagnostic tests and therapeutic procedures (IC
• The use of ONS is recommended to achieve protein and energy targets measurements, radiography for confirmation of feeding tube
during the very post-operative phase (at least for the first 4 days) placement, other GI diagnostic tests)
• If patient is significantly malnourished, nutritional supplementation (oral Nutrition-Focused i. Nutrition-focused physical examination that includes, but is not
Perioperative
and/or PN) has the greatest effect if started 7−10 days preoperatively, and Physical Findings: limited to: fluid assessment, functional status, wound status, clinical
Nutrition Care for
is associated with reduction in prevalence of infectious complications and signs of malnutrition/overnutrition and/or nutrient deficiencies
Elective Colonic
anastomotic leaks. ii. Intake and output including urine, stool and fistula output, and wound
Surgery
• Postoperatively, patient is allowed to drink immediately after recovery from drainage
anaesthesia, followed by normal hospital food. It is safe to spontaneously iii. Existing or potential access sites for delivery of nutrition support
consume ~1200−1500 kcal/day. therapy
• RCT of early EN or oral vs NBM showed early feeding reduces risk of iv. GI-related examination including abdominal distension, diarrhoea,
infection and hospital LOS, and is not associated with increased risk of constipation, vomiting, regurgitation and gastric drainage volume
anastomotic dehiscence. v. Fluid status (oedema, ascites, dehydration)
• An oral ad-libitum diet is recommended 4 h after rectal surgery. vi. Vital signs (hemodynamic status)
• Delay oral intake after major surgery is associated with increased rates of Client History: i. Current and past information related to personal, medical, family, and
infectious complications and delayed recovery social history
Perioperative
• Early oral diet was shown to be safe in patients with a new non-diverted ii. Surgical intervention
Nutrition Care for
colorectal anastomosis • Assessment of the above factors is needed to correctly diagnose nutrition problems and plan
Elective Pelvic or
• However, early oral intake had increased risk of vomiting, efforts must be nutrition interventions. Inability to achieve optimal nutrient intake may contribute to poor
Rectal Surgery
made to prevent postoperative ileus and a risk of aspiration outcomes.
In addition to normal food intake, patients should be offered ONS to • Critically ill patients are usually unable to communicate and to provide necessary information
maintain adequate intake of protein and energy. for nutritional assessment. Information may, however, be obtained from medical records,
• Routine use of preoperative artificial nutrition is not warranted, but family members, nursing home or long-term care facility.
Perioperative significantly malnourished patients should be optimised with oral
Nutrition Care supplements or enteral nutrition preoperatively. (Adapted from Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library 2012215)
(Pancreaticoduoden • Immunonutrition for 5−7 days perioperatively should be considered
-ectomy) because it may reduce the prevalence of infectious complications in
patients undergoing major open abdominal surgery.
• Chewing gum is safe and beneficial in reducing time to first bowel
Other Strategies
movement by 1 day after GI surgery
69 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 70
70. Watkinson PJ, Barber VS, Dark P, Young JD. The use of pre- pro- and synbiotics in adult 92. Miller N, Miller M, Hill LT. The impact of antioxidant supplementation on clinical outcomes in
intensive care unit patients: Systematic review. Clin Nutr. 2007;26(2):182-192. the critically ill: A meta-analysis. S Afr J Crit Care. 2013;29(1):18. doi:10.7196/sajcc.149.
doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2006.07.010. 93. Huang T, Shyu Y, Chen H-Y, et al. Effect of parenteral selenium supplementation in critically ill
71. Manzanares W, Lemieux M, Langlois PL, Wischmeyer PE. Probiotic and synbiotic therapy in patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e54431.
critical illness : a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2016;20(262). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054431.
doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1434-y. 94. Alhazzani W, Jacobi J, Sindi A, et al. The Effect of Selenium Therapy on Mortality in Patients
72. Liu K, Zhu Y, Zhang J, et al. Probiotics’ effects on the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in With Sepsis Syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(6):1555-1564.
critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2012;16(3):R109. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a24c6.
doi:10.1186/cc11398. 95. Landucci F, Mancinelli P, De Gaudio AR, Virgili G. Selenium supplementation in critically ill
73. Lherm T, Monet C, Nougière B, et al. Seven cases of fungemia with Saccharomyces boulardii patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care. 2014;29(1):150-156.
in critically ill patients. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28(6):797-801. doi:10.1007/s00134-002- doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.08.017.
1267-9. 96. van Zanten ARH, Sztark F, Kaisers UX, et al. High-Protein Enteral Nutrition Enriched With
74. Malik AA, Rajandram R, Chien P, Hakumat-rai V, Chin K. Microbial cell preparation in enteral Immune-Modulating Nutrients vs Standard High-Protein Enteral Nutrition and Nosocomial
feeding in critically ill patients : A randomized , double-blind , placebo-controlled clinical trial . Infections in the ICU A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2014;312(5):514-524.
J Crit Care. 2016;32:182-188. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.12.008. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.7698.
75. Elia M, Engfer MB, Green CJ, Silk DBA. Systematic review and meta-analysis: the clinical and 97. Bloos F, Trips E, Nierhaus A, et al. Effect of Sodium Selenite Administration and Procalcitonin-
physiological effects of fibre-containing enteral formulae. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. Guided Therapy on Mortality in Patients With Severe Sepsis or Septic Shock. JAMA Intern
2008;27:120-145. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03544.x. Med. 2016:1-11. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2514.
76. Yang G, Wu X-T, Zhou Y, Wang Y-L. Application of dietary fiber in clinical enteral nutrition: a 98. Sondheimer JM. A Critical Perspective on Trophic Feeding. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr.
meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Gastroenterol. 2005;11(25):3935-3938. 2004;38(3):237-238.
77. Zaman MK, Chin K, Rai V, Majid HA. Fiber and prebiotic supplementation in enteral nutrition: a 99. Rice TW, Wheeler AP, Thompson BT, et al. Initial Trophic vs Full Enteral Feeding in Patients
systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(17):5372-5381. With Acute Lung Injury: The EDEN Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2012;307(8):795-803.
doi:10.3748/wjg.v21.i17.5372. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.137.
78. Slavin JL, Greenberg NA. Partially Hydrolyzed Guar Gum: Clinical Nutrition Uses. Nutrition. 100. Schlein KM, Coulter SP. Best Practices for Determining Resting Energy Expenditure in
2003;19:549-552. Critically Ill Adults. Nutr Clin Pract. 2014;29(1):44-55. doi:10.1177/0884533613515002.
79. Majid HA, Cole J, Emery PW, Whelan K. Additional oligofructose/inulin does not increase 101. Brown RO. Drug-Nutrient Interactions. In: Cresci G, ed. Nutrition Support for the Critically Ill
faecal bifidobacteria in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition : A randomised controlled Patient. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis; 2005:349.
trial. Clin Nutr. 2014;33(6):966-972. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2013.11.008. 102. Podel J, Wetzel RH-, Saha DC, Burns G. Glucose Absorption in Acute Peritoneal Dialysis. J
80. Ziegler TR. Parenteral Nutrition in the Critically Ill Patient. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(11):1088- Ren Nutr. 2000;10(2):93-97. doi:10.1053/m.2000.5103.
1097. 103. Wiesen K, Mindel G. Dialysis. In: Byham-Gray LD, Burrowes JD, Chertow GM, eds. Nutrition in
81. Casaer MP, Mesotten D, Hermans G, et al. Early versus Late Parenteral Nutrition in Critically Kidney Disease. Totowa: Human Press; 2008:236-237. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(6):506--517. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1102662. 104. Monson P, Mehta RL. Nutritional Considerations in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapies.
82. Doig GS, Simpson F, Sweetman EA, et al. Early Parenteral Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients Semin Dial. 1996;9(2):152-160.
With Short-term Relative Contraindications to Early Enteral Nutrition. JAMA. 105. Whelan K, Judd PA, Preedy VR, Taylor MA. Covert assessment of concurrent and construct
2013;309(20):2130. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.5124. validity of a chart to characterize fecal output and diarrhea in patients receiving enteral
83. Heidegger CP, Berger MM, Graf S, et al. Optimisation of energy provision with supplemental nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2008;32(2):160-168. doi:10.1177/0148607108314769.
parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a randomised controlled clinical trial. Lancet. 106. de Brito-Ashurst I, Preiser J-C. Diarrhea in Critically Ill Patients: The Role of Enteral Feeding.
2013;381(9864):385-393. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61351-8. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2016. doi:10.1177/0148607116651758.
84. Stehle P, Ellger B, Kojic D, et al. Glutamine dipeptide-supplemented parenteral nutrition 107. Pinilla JC, Samphire J, Arnold C, Liu L, Thiessen B. Comparison of Gastrointestinal Tolerance
improves the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients: A systematic evaluation of randomised to Two Enteral Feeding Protocols in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective, Randomized
controlled trials. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.clnesp.2016.09.007. Controlled Trial. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2001;25(2):81-86.
85. Chen QH, Yang Y, He HL, et al. The effect of glutamine therapy on outcomes in critically ill doi:10.1177/014860710102500281.
patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2014;18(1):R8. 108. McClave SA, Lukan JK, Stefater JA, et al. Poor validity of residual volumes as a marker for risk
doi:10.1186/cc13185. of aspiration in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(2):324-330.
86. Bollhalder L, Pfeil AM, Tomonaga Y, Schwenkglenks M. A systematic literature review and doi:10.1097/01.CCM.0000153413.46627.3A.
meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of parenteral glutamine supplementation. Clin Nutr. 109. Bonten MJM, Gaillard CA, Van Tiel FH, Sineets HGW, Van der Geest S, Stobberingh EE. The
2013;32(2):213-223. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2012.11.003. Stomach is Not a Source for Colonization of the Upper Respiratory Tract and Pneumonia in
87. Wischmeyer PE, Dhaliwal R, McCall M, Ziegler TR, Heyland DK. Parenteral glutamine ICU Patients. Chest. 1994;105(3):878-884. doi:10.1378/chest.105.3.878.
supplementation in critical illness: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2014;18(2):R76. 110. Marik PE. Aspiration Pneumonitis and Aspiration Pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):665-
doi:10.1186/cc13836. 671. doi:10.1056/NEJM200103013440908.
88. Palmer AJ, Ho CKM, Ajibola O, Avenell A. The Role of ω-3 Fatty Acid Supplemented 111. Poulard F, Dimet J, Martin-Llefevre L, et al. Impact of Not Measuring Residual Gastric Volume
Parenteral Nutrition in Critical Illness in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Crit in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Receiving Early Enteral Feeding: A Prospective
Care Med. 2013;41:307-316. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182657578. Before−After Study. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2010;34(2):125-130.
89. Chen W, Jiang H, Zhou Z, et al. Is Omega-3 Fatty Acids Enriched Nutrition Support Safe for doi:10.1177/0148607109344745.
Critical Ill Patients? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2014;6:2148-2164. 112. Ozen N, Tosun N, Yamanel L, Altintas ND, Kilciler G, Ozen V. Evaluation of the effect on
doi:10.3390/nu6062148. patient parameters of not monitoring gastric residual volume in intensive care patients on a
90. Manzanares W, Langlois PL, Dhaliwal R, Lemieux M, Heyland DK. Intravenous fish oil lipid mechanical ventilator receiving enteral feeding: A randomized clinical trial. J Crit Care.
emulsions in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2016;33:137-144. doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.01.028.
2015;19:167. doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0888-7. 113. Powell KS, Marcuard SP, Farrior ES, Gallagher ML. Aspirating gastric residuals causes
91. Manzanares W, Dhaliwal R, Jiang X, Murch L, Heyland DK. Antioxidant micronutrients in the occlusion of small-bore feeding tubes. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 1993;17(3):243-246.
critically ill: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2012;16(2):R66. doi:10.1177/0148607193017003243.
doi:10.1186/cc11316. 114. Mehanna HM, Moledina J, Travis J. Refeeding syndrome: what it is, and how to prevent and
treat it. BMJ. 2008;336(7659):1495-1498. doi:10.1136/bmj.a301.
77 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 78
115. Friedli N, Stanga Z, Sobotka L, et al. Revisiting the Refeeding Syndrome: Results of a management of acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(9):1400-15.
Systematic Review. Nutrition. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.nut.2016.05.016. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.218.
116. Doig GS, Simpson F, Heighes PT, et al. Restricted versus continued standard caloric intake 137. Nally DM, Kelly EG, Clarke M, Ridgway P. Nasogastric nutrition is efficacious in severe acute
during the management of refeeding syndrome in critically ill adults: A randomised, parallel- pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Nutr. 2014;(7):1-10.
group, multicentre, single-blind controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(12):943-952. doi:10.1017/S0007114514002566.
doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00418-X. 138. Meier R, Ockenga J, Pertkiewicz M, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Pancreas.
117. Rio A, Whelan K, Goff L, Reidlinger DP, Smeeton N. Occurrence of refeeding syndrome in Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):275-284. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2006.01.019.
adults started on artificial nutrition support: prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 139. Petrov MS, Loveday BPT, Pylypchuk RD, McIlroy K, Phillips ARJ, Windsor JA. Systematic
2013;3(1):e002173. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002173. review and meta-analysis of enteral nutrition formulations in acute pancreatitis. Br J Surg.
118. NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Nutrition support for adults: oral 2009;96(11):1243-1252. doi:10.1002/bjs.6862.
nutrition support, enteral tube feeding and parenteral nutrition. CG32. 140. Zhang MM, Cheng JQ, Lu YR, Yi ZH, Yang P, Wu XT. Use of pre-, pro-and synbiotics in
https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg32/chapter/1-Guidance#indications-for-nutrition-support- patients with acute pancreatitis: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2010;16(31):3970-
in-hospital-and-the-community. Published 2006. Accessed May 1, 2017. 3978. doi:10.3748/wjg.v16.i31.3970.
119. Ferrie S, Daniells S, Gagnon S, et al. Enteral nutrition manual for adults in health care 141. Gou S, Yang Z, Liu T, Wu H, Wang C. Use of probiotics in the treatment of severe acute
facilities. 2015;(January):52. https://daa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Enteral-nutrition- pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care.
manual-January-2015.pdf. 2014;18(2):1-10. doi:10.1186/cc13809.
120. BAPEN British Association for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Parenteral Nutrition 142. Wang G, Wen J, Xu L, et al. Effect of enteral nutrition and ecoimmunonutrition on bacterial
Monitoring. http://www.bapen.org.uk/nutrition-support/parenteral-nutrition/monitoring. translocation and cytokine production in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. J Surg Res.
Published 2016. Accessed June 1, 2017. 2013;183:592-597. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.010.
121. Hartl WH, Jauch KW, Parhofer K, Rittler P. Complications and monitoring - Guidelines on 143. Besselink MG, Van Santvoort H, Buskens E, et al. Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe
Parenteral Nutrition, Chapter 11. Ger Med Sci. 2009;7:1-12. doi:10.3205/000076. acute pancreatitis : a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:651-
122. Hanlon CO, Dervan N, Dowsett J, Corish C. Transition from Parenteral to Enteral Nutrition in 659. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60207-X.
Intensive Care Unit. In: Rajendram R, Preedy VR, Patel V, eds. Diet and Nutrition in Critical 144. Rousseau AF, Losser MR, Ichai C, Berger MM. ESPEN endorsed recommendations:
Care. Springer-Verlag New York; 2015:507-520. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7836-2_50. Nutritional therapy in major burns. Clin Nutr. 2013;32(4):497-502.
123. Dervan N, Dowsett J, Gleeson E, Carr S, Corish C. Evaluation of over- and underfeeding doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2013.02.012.
following the introduction of a protocol for weaning from parenteral to enteral nutrition in the 145. Vicic VK, Radman M, Kovacic V. Early initiation of enteral nutrition improves outcomes in burn
intensive care unit. Nutr Clin Pract. 2012;27(6):781-787. doi:10.1177/0884533612462899. disease. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2013;22(4):543-547. doi:10.6133/apjcn.2013.22.4.13.
124. Kellum J a, Lameire N, Aspelin P, et al. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Kidney 146. Peng YZ, Yuan ZQ, Xiao GX. Effects of early enteral feeding on the prevention of enterogenic
Injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2(1):1-138. doi:10.1038/kisup.2012.7. infection in severely burned patients. Burns. 2001;27:145-149.
125. Cano N, Fiaccadori E, Tesinsky P, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: Adult Renal 147. Chen Z, Wang S, Yu B, Li A. A comparison study between early enteral nutrition and
Failure. Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):295-310. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2006.01.023. parenteral nutrition in severe burn patients. Burns. 2007;33(6):708-712.
126. Cano NJM, Aparicio M, Brunori G, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: Adult doi:10.1016/j.burns.2006.10.380.
Renal Failure. Clin Nutr. 2009;28(4):401-414. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2009.05.016. 148. Lam NN, Tien NG, Khoa CM. Early enteral feeding for burned patients-An effective method
127. Scheinkestel CD, Kar L, Marshall K, et al. Prospective randomized trial to assess caloric and which should be encouraged in developing countries. Burns. 2008;34(2):192-196.
protein needs of critically ill, anuric, ventilated patients requiring continuous renal replacement doi:10.1016/j.burns.2007.03.010.
therapy. Nutrition. 2003;19(11-12):909-916. doi:10.1016/S0899-9007(03)00175-8. 149. Backett KA, Baytieh L, Carr-Thompson A, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines Nutrition Burn
128. Sabatino A, Fiaccadori E. Critically Ill Patient on Renal Replacement Therapy: Nutritional Patient Management NSW Statewide Burn Injury Service.; 2011.
Support by Enteral and Parenteral Routes. In: Rajendram R, Preedy VR, Patel VB, eds. Diet 150. Ahuja RB, Puri V, Gibran N, et al. ISBI Practice Guidelines for Burn Care. Burns.
and Nutrition in Critical Care. Springer-Verlag New York; 2015:671-683. doi:10.1007/978-1- 2016;42(5):953-1021. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2016.05.013.
4614-7836-2_87. 151. American Burn Association. Practice Guidelines for Burn Care. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2001:1S-
129. Fiaccadori E, Regolisti G, Maggiore U. Specialized nutritional support interventions in critically 69S. doi:10.1097/01.BCR.0000226084.26680.56.
ill patients on renal replacement therapy. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2013;16(2):217-224. 152. Stoecklin P, Delodder F, Pantet O, Berger MM. Moderate glycemic control safe in critically ill
doi:10.1097/MCO.0b013e32835c20b0. adult burn patients: A 15 year cohort study. Burns. 2016;42(1):63-70.
130. Bakker OJ, Van Brunschot S, Farre A, et al. Timing of enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis: doi:10.1016/j.burns.2015.10.025.
Meta-analysis of individuals using a single-arm of randomised trials. Pancreatology. 153. Hall KL, Shahrokhi S, Jeschke MG. Enteral nutrition support in burn care: A review of current
2014;14(5):340-346. doi:10.1016/j.pan.2014.07.008. recommendations as instituted in the ross tilley burn centre. Nutrients. 2012;4(11):1554-1565.
131. Wereszczynska-Siemiatkowska U, Swidnicka-Siergiejko A, Siemiatkowski A, Dabrowski A. doi:10.1155/2012/539426.
Early Enteral Nutrition Is Superior to Delayed Enteral Nutrition for the Prevention of Infected 154. Lin JJ, Chung XJ, Yang CY, Lau HL. A meta-analysis of trials using the intention to treat
Necrosis and Mortality in Acute Pancreatitis. Pancreas. 2013;42(4):640-646. principle for glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients with burn. Burns.
doi:10.1097/MPA.0b013e318271bb61. 2013;39(4):565-570. doi:10.1016/j.burns.2012.11.008.
132. Bakker OJ, van Brunschot S, van Santvoort HC, et al. Early versus On-Demand Nasoenteric 155. The NICE-SUGAR Study Investigator. Intensive versus Conventional Glucose Control in
Tube Feeding in Acute Pancreatitis. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(21):1983-1993. Critically Ill Patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283-1297. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0810625.
doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1404393. 156. Mesejo A, Montejo-González JC, Vaquerizo-Alonso C, et al. Diabetes-specific enteral nutrition
133. Mirtallo JM, Forbes A, McClave S a, Jensen GL, Waitzberg DL, Davies AR. International formula in hyperglycemic, mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a prospective, open-
consensus guidelines for nutrition therapy in pancreatitis. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. label, blind-randomized, multicenter study. Crit Care. 2015;19(1):390. doi:10.1186/s13054-
2012;36(3):284-291. doi:10.1177/0148607112440823. 015-1108-1.
134. Yi F, Ge L, Zhao J, et al. Meta-analysis: total parenteral nutrition versus total enteral nutrition 157. McMahon MM, Nystrom E, Braunschweig C, Miles J, Compher C. A.S.P.E.N. Clinical
in predicted severe acute pancreatitis. Intern Med. 2012;51(6):523-530. Guidelines: Nutrition Support of Adult Patients With Hyperglycemia. JPEN J Parenter Enter
doi:10.2169/internalmedicine.51.6685. Nutr. 2013;37(1):23-36. doi:10.1177/0148607112452001.
135. IAP/APA Acute Pancreatitis Guidelines Working Group. IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines 158. Córdoba J, López-Hellín J, Planas M, et al. Normal protein diet for episodic hepatic
for the management of acute pancreatitis. Pancreatology. 2013;13(4):e1-15. encephalopathy: Results of a randomized study. J Hepatol. 2004;41(1):38-43.
doi:10.1016/j.pan.2013.07.063. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2004.03.023.
136. Tenner S, Baillie J, DeWitt J, Vege SS. American College of Gastroenterology guideline: 159. Bémeur C, Desjardins P, Butterworth RF. Role of nutrition in the management of hepatic
79 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017 2017 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 80
encephalopathy in end-stage liver failure. J Nutr Metab. 2010. doi:10.1155/2010/489823. 182. Lassen K, Coolsen MM, Slim K, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care for
160. Plauth M, Merli M, Kondrup J, Weimann A, Ferenci P, Muller MJ. ESPEN guidelines for pancreaticoduodenectomy: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society
nutrition in liver disease and transplantation. Clin Nutr. 1997;16(2):43-55. doi:10.1016/S0261- recommendations. Clin Nutr. 2012;31:817-830. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2012.08.011.
5614(97)80022-2. 183. Nygren J, Thacker J, Carli F, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective rectal/pelvic
161. Plauth M, Cabré E, Campillo B, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: Hepatology. surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations. Clin Nutr.
Clin Nutr. 2009;28(4):436-444. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2009.04.019. 2012;31(6):801-816. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2012.08.012.
162. Hasse JM, Blue LS, Liepa GU, et al. Early enteral nutrition support in patients undergoing liver 184. Steenhagen E. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: Its Time to Change Practice! Nutr Clin Pract.
transplantation. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 1995;19(6):437-443. 2016;31(1):18-29. doi:10.1177/0884533615622640.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8748357. 185. Greco M, Capretti G, Beretta L, Gemma M, Pecorelli N, Braga M. Enhanced recovery program
163. Reilly J, Mehta R, Teperman L, et al. Nutritional support after liver transplantation: a in colorectal surgery: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg.
randomized prospective study. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 1990;14(4):386-391. 2014;38(6):1531-1541. doi:10.1007/s00268-013-2416-8.
doi:10.1177/0148607190014004386. 186. Vincent J-L, Moreno R, Takala J, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment)
164. Rice TW, Mogan S, Hays MA, Bernard GR, Jensen GL, Wheeler AP. Randomized trial of initial score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707–710.
trophic versus full-energy enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated patients with acute 187. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The Third International Consensus Definitions
respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(5):967-974. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31820a905a. for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801-810.
165. Elke G, Schädler D, Engel C, et al. Current practice in nutritional support and its association doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0287.
with mortality in septic patients—Results from a national, prospective, multicenter study*. Crit 188. Reitnam Blaser A, Poeze M, Malbrain ML, Bjorck M, Oudemans-van Straaten HM, Starkopf J.
Care Med. 2008;36(6):1762-1767. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e318174dcf0. Gastrointestinal symptoms during the first week of intensive care are associated with poor
166. Elke G, Kuhnt E, Ragaller M, et al. Enteral nutrition is associated with improved outcome in outcome : a prospective multicentre study. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:899-909.
patients with severe sepsis. A secondary analysis of the VISEP trial. Med Klin Intensivmed doi:10.1007/s00134-013-2831-1.
Notfmed. 2013;108(3):223-233. doi:10.1007/s00063-013-0224-4. 189. Oshima T, Berger MM, De Waele E, et al. Indirect calorimetry in nutritional therapy. A position
167. O’Keefe GE, Shelton M, Cuschieri J, et al. Inflammation and the host response to injury, a paper by the ICALIC study group. Clin Nutr. 2016. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2016.06.010.
large-scale collaborative project: patient-oriented research core--standard operating 190. Tatucu-Babet OA, Ridley EJ, Tierney AC. The Prevalence of Underprescription or
procedures for clinical care VIII--Nutritional support of the trauma patient. J Trauma. Overprescription of Energy Needs in Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Adults as Determined
2008;65(6):1520-1528. doi:10.1097/TA.0b013e3181904b0c. by Indirect Calorimetry: A Systematic Literature Review. JPEN. 2015.
168. Falcão de Arruda IS, de Aguilar-Nascimento JE. Benefits of early enteral nutrition with doi:10.1177/0148607114567898.
glutamine and probiotics in brain injury patients. Clin Sci. 2004;106:287-292. 191. Ngoh H, Sakinah H, Harsa Amylia M. Development of Demi-span Equations for Predicting
doi:10.1042/CS20030251. Height among the Malaysian Elderly. Mal J Nutr. 2012;18(2):149-160.
169. Hasadsri L, Wang BH, Lee J V, et al. Omega-3 fatty acids as a putative treatment for traumatic 192. Suzana S, Ng SP. Predictive equations for estimation of stature in Malaysian elderly people.
brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2013;30(11):897-906. doi:10.1089/neu.2012.2672. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2003;12(1):80-84.
170. DeLegge MH, Kelley AT. State of Nutrition Support Teams. Nutr Clin Pract. 2013;28(6):691-697. 193. Kwok T, Lau E, Woo J. The prediction of height by armspan in older Chinese people. Ann Hum
doi:10.1177/0884533613507455. Biol. 2002;29(6):649-656.
171. Mo YH, Rhee J, Lee EK. Effects of nutrition support team services on outcomes in ICU 194. Fatmah. Predictive equations for estimation of stature from knee height, arm span, and sitting
patients. Yakugaku zasshi. 2011;131(12):1827-1833. height in Indonesian Javanese elderly people. Int J Med Sci. 2009;1(10):456-461.
172. Martin CM, Doig GS, Heyland DK, Morrison T, Sibbald WJ. Multicentre, cluster-randomized 195. Fatmah. Validation of predicted height model based on arm span, knee height and sitting
clinical trial of algorithms for critical-care enteral and parenteral therapy (ACCEPT). CMAJ. height in Indonesian elderly people. J Clin Med Res. 2010;2(5):67-73.
2004;170(2):197-204. 196. Li ETS, Tang EKY, Wong CYM, et al. Predicting stature from knee height in Chinese elderly
173. Doig GS, Simpson F, Finfer S, et al. Effect of Evidence-Based Feeding Guidelines on Mortality subjects. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2000;9(4):252-255.
of Critically Ill Patients. JAMA. 2008;300(23):2731-2741. 197. Knous BL, Arisawa M. Estimation of Height in Elderly Japanese Using Region-Specific Knee
174. Soguel L, Revelly J-P, Schaller M-D, Longchamp C, Berger MM. Energy deficit and length of Height Equations. Am J Hum Biol. 2002;14:300-307. doi:10.1002/ajhb.10035.
hospital stay can be reduced by a two-step quality improvement of nutrition therapy. Crit Care 198. Hwang IC, Kim KK, Kang HC, Kang DR. Validity of Stature-predicted Equations using Knee
Med. 2012;40(2):412-419. doi:10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822f0ad7. Height for Elderly and Mobility Impaired Persons in Koreans. Epidemiol Heal.
175. Heyland DK, Cahill NE, Dhaliwal R, et al. Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral 2009;31(e2009004):1-6. doi:10.4178/epih/e2009004.
Route in Critically Ill Patients: a single center feasibility trial of the PEP uP protocol. Crit Care. 199. Hamwi G. Therapy: Changing Dietary Concepts. In: Danowski T, ed. Diabetes Mellitus:
2010;14(2):R78. doi:10.1186/cc8991. Diagnosis and Treatment (Vol. 1). New York: American Diabetes Association; 1964:73-78.
176. McClave SA, Saad MA, Esterle M, et al. Volume-Based Feeding in the Critically Ill Patient. 200. Devine B. Gentamicin therapy. Drug Intell Clin Pharm. 1974;8:650-655.
JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2015;39(6):707-712. doi:10.1177/0148607114540004. 201. Hume R. Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight. J Clin Path. 1966;19:389-391.
177. Taylor B, Brody R, Denmark R, Southard R, Byham-Gray L. Improving Enteral Delivery 202. Weijs PJM, Sauerwein HP, Kondrup J. Protein recommendations in the ICU: g protein/kg body
Through the Adoption of the “Feed Early Enteral Diet Adequately for Maximum Effect (FEED weight – which body weight for underweight and obese patients? Clin Nutr. 2012;31(5):774-
ME)” Protocol in a Surgical Trauma ICU: A Quality Improvement Review. Nutr Clin Pract. 775. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2012.04.007.
2014;29(5):639-648. doi:10.1177/0884533614539705. 203. Crandall CS, Gardner S, Braude DA. Estimation of Total Body Weight in Obese Patients. Air
178. Taylor SJ, Fettes SB, Jewkes C, Nelson RJ. Prospective, randomized, controlled trial to Med J. 2009;28(3):139-145. doi:10.1016/j.amj.2009.02.002.
determine the effect of early enhanced enteral nutrition on clinical outcome in mechanically 204. Lin BW, Yoshida D, Quinn J, Strehlow M. A better way to estimate adult patients’ weights. Am
ventilated patients suffering head injury. Crit Care Med. 1999;27(11):2252-2531. J Emerg Med. 2009;27(9):1060-1064. doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2008.08.018.
179. Osland E, Yunus RM, Khan S, Memon MA. Early Versus Traditional Postoperative Feeding in 205. Buckley RG, Stehman CR, Santos FL Dos, et al. Bedside Method to Estimate Actual Body
Patients Undergoing Resectional Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis. JPEN J Parenter Weight in the Emergency Department. J Emerg Med. 2012;42(1):100-104.
Enter Nutr. 2011;35(4):473-487. doi:10.1177/0148607110385698. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.10.022.
180. Lambert E, Carey S. Practice Guideline Recommendations on Perioperative Fasting : A 206. Osterkamp LK. Current perspective on assessment of human body proportions of relevance to
Systematic Review. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. 2016;40(8):1158-1165. amputees. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995;95(2):215-218.
doi:10.1177/0148607114567713. 207. Todorovic V, Rusell C, Elia M. The “MUST Explanatory Booklet: A Guide to the ‘Malnutrition
181. Gustafsson UO, Scott MJ, Schwenk W, et al. Guidelines for perioperative care in elective Universal Screening Tool (’MUST”) for Adults. 2nd ed. Redditch: BAPEN; 2011.
colonic surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations. Clin 208. Piland C, Adams K. Pocket Resource for Nutrition Assessment. 7th ed. Dietetics in Health
Nutr. 2012;31(6):783-800. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2012.08.013. Care Communities; 2009.
81 Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT) Guidelines for Critically Ill Adults 2017
209. Sevransky JE, Nour S, Susla GM, Needham DM, Hollenberg S, Pronovost P. Hemodynamic
goals in randomized clinical trials in patients with sepsis: a systematic review of the literature.
Crit Care. 2007;11(3):R67. doi:10.1186/cc5948.
210. Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). Natl Acad Press.
https://www.nal.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fnic_uploads//recommended_intakes_individuals.p
df.
211. Royall D, Fairholm L, Peters WJ, Jeejeebhoy KN, Allard JP. Continuous measurement of
energy expenditure in ventilated burn patients: An analysis. Crit Care Med. 1994;22(3):399-
406.
212. Demling RH, Seigne P. Metabolic management of patients with severe burns. World J Surg.
2000;24(6):673-680. doi:10.1007/s002689910109.
213. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, et al. Definition for Sepsis and Organ Failure and Guidelines for
the use of Innovative Therapies in Sepsis. Chest. 1992;101(6):1644-1655.
214. Chang S-J, Huang H-H. Diarrhea in enterally fed patients : blame the diet? Curr Opin Clin Nutr
Metab Care. 2013;16(5):588-594. doi:10.1097/MCO.0b013e328363bcaf.
215. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library. Critical Illness: Executive
Summary of Recommendations. 2012.
https://www.andeal.org/topic.cfm?menu=5302&cat=4840.
216. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: A severity of disease
classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13(10):818-829.