No abstract

BackgroundThe importance of enteral nutrition (EN) in critically ill patients is well documented. However, actual administration of EN frequently does not amount to prescribed nutrition goals. Persistent underfeeding may lead to impaired immune response, increased mortality, and higher costs. Traditionally, EN uses a rate‐based approach, utilizing slow titration to goal and a final fixed hourly rate, regardless of interruptions in feeding. Volume‐based feeding (VBF) establishes a 24‐hour EN goal volume, and the rate varies to achieve this daily goal when interruptions occur.Materials and MethodsThis was a retrospective, single‐center, quasi‐experimental study comparing traditional rate‐based feeding (RBF) to VBF in adult patients admitted to the medical and neurosurgical intensive care units (ICUs). The primary outcome was mean percentage of total goal energy received after EN initiation until 7 days, transfer from ICU, removal of feeding tube, or oral diet order placed. Secondary outcomes included mean percentage of total goal protein received, percentage of patients meeting 80% of nutrition goals, incidence of gastric residual volumes >400 mL, and incidence of moderate hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL).ResultsThe study enrolled 189 patients. Mean percentage of goal energy delivered (75% RBF, 102% VBF; P < .001) and goal protein delivered (68% RBF, 87% VBF; P < .001) was significantly higher with VBF compared with RBF.ConclusionVBF demonstrated a significant increase in energy and protein delivery with no major safety or tolerability issues. VBF should be considered for use in ICU patients to optimize nutrition delivery.

Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles , AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose Guidelines from the National Institutes of Health support the use of balanced crystalloid solutions such as Normosol-R (Hospira, Lake Forest, IL) for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, their clinical utility is hindered by a lack of Y-site compatibility data that is essential for use in patients with limited intravenous access. The objective of this study was to determine the physical compatibility of selected intensive care unit medications with Normosol-R. Methods The study involved laboratory simulation of Y-site compatibility. Medications tested included amiodarone, caspofungin, dexmedetomidine, dobutamine, dopamine, epinephrine, levofloxacin, norepinephrine, pantoprazole, phenylephrine, piperacillin/tazobactam, vancomycin, and vasopressin. Tests performed were visual assessment with Tyndall light, turbidity measurement, and pH assessment. Tests were performed immediately after mixing (with the exception of turbidity testing) and after 1 hour and 4 hours. Results Incompatibility was defined as observation of haze, gas, particulate, or color change or admixture turbidity above 0.3 or above 0.5 nephelometric turbidity unit (NTU), depending on whether the baseline turbidity was less than or greater than 0.5 NTU, respectively. Analysis of solubility and compatibility based on change from baseline to admixture pH in relation to reported acid dissociation constant (pKa) was performed. There was no evidence of visual incompatibility for any of the admixtures when mixed with Normosol-R. Turbidity exceeded the defined threshold with pantoprazole, phenylephrine, and highly concentrated norepinephrine. Pantoprazole was the only test medication with a significant pH change when compared to its pKa. Conclusion Normosol-R is compatible for Y-site administration with all tested medications except for pantoprazole, phenylephrine, and highly concentrated norepinephrine, allowing for potential increased use in patients with COVID-19.

No abstract