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

Background: The Joint Commission has mandated universal screening and assessment of hospitalized patients for malnutrition since 1995. Although various validated and nonvalidated tools are available, implementation of this mandate has not been well characterized. We report results of a survey of hospital-based professionals in the United States describing their perspective on the current range of nutrition screening and assessment practices as well as associated gaps in knowledge. Methods and Materials: Data from a 2012-2013 cross-sectional, web-based survey targeting members of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.), the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses, and the Society of Hospital Medicine were collected with non-hospital-based members excluded. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed. Results: Survey data from 1777 unique email addresses are included in this report. A majority of respondents were dietitians, nearly half were A.S.P.E.N. members, and 69.4% reported caring for a mix of adult and pediatric patients. Most respondents answered affirmatively about nutrition screening being performed in alignment with The Joint Commission mandate, but only 50% were familiar with the 2012 Consensus Statement from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/A.S.P.E.N. on adult malnutrition. In most cases, nurses were primarily responsible for nutrition screening, while dietitians had primary responsibility for assessment. No one specific assessment tool or International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code was identified as being used a majority of the time in assessing or coding a patient for malnutrition. Conclusions: The survey findings affirmed compliance with accreditation standards in completing a nutrition screen within 24 hours of admission, and most hospitals appear to have a process to perform a nutrition assessment once a screen is completed. However, there is considerable heterogeneity in both use of tools and mechanisms for coding capture. Opportunities exist to improve education around nutrition screening and assessment and to identify ideal practices for these processes in hospitalized patients.

Background Multiple societal guidelines recommend enteral nutrition (EN) be initiated within 24 to 48 hours of admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) once a patient is hemodynamically stable. Gastrointestinal intolerance and occurrence of bowel ischemia have been a concern for patients receiving vasopressors while concurrently receiving luminal nutrients. The study objective was to determine whether patients receiving vasopressors while concomitantly receiving enteral nutrients had more incidences of bowel ischemia and intolerance than those receiving EN without vasopressor agents. Methods This retrospective study included 319 medical and surgical ICU patients from a level 1 trauma center. The patients were either receiving vasopressors simultaneously with EN (n = 178) or EN alone (n = 141). Data regarding gastric residual volume (GRV), new abdominal pain, emesis, and bowel ischemia were collected. Results There were more patients who had elevated GRV in the group that received vasopressors than patients who did not (20% vs 7%; P‐value < .01). There were no differences between rates of bowel ischemia, emesis, or new abdominal pain between the 2 groups. Conclusion Based on our findings, EN is generally well tolerated and safe for those patients simultaneously receiving vasopressors.

No abstract