Seven Deadly Sins of Nutrition Therapy in Critically Ill Patients

Loss, Sérgio Henrique; Franzosi, Oellen Stuani; Nunes, Diego Silva Leite; Teixeira, Cassiano; Viana, Luciana Verçoza

doi:10.1002/ncp.10430

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 60 publications

(130 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Supplemental PN (SPN) refers to a mixed nutritional support method, in which part of the energy and protein is supplemented by PN when EN is insufficient ( 8 , 9 ). Studies have found that reasonable SPN can meet the energy and protein needs of critically ill patients, promote protein synthesis, adjust nitrogen balance, improve nutritional status, and even reduce complications and improve prognosis ( 10 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RETRACTED: Effect of supplemental parenteral nutrition on all-cause mortality in critically Ill adults: A meta-analysis and subgroup analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveSeveral observational studies have demonstrated that increased nutritional delivery by supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) plus enteral nutrition (EN) reduces the rate of all-cause mortality in critically ill patients. Therefore, we aimed to compare and evaluate the effect of SPN plus EN on all-cause mortality in critically ill adults.MethodsRandomized controlled trials were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and Sinomed (up to May 2021). Adults with severe illness treated with SPN plus EN or with EN alone were enrolled. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata software. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and was evaluated by pooled odds ratio (OR) with the fixed-effects model. Required information size was also calculated using trial sequential analysis.ResultsWe identified 10 randomized controlled trials, with a total of 6,908 patients. No significant differences in rate of all-cause mortality (OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.84–1.09, P = 0.518), intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.75–1.07, P = 0.229), and hospital mortality (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.82–1.10, P = 0.482) were found between the SPN plus EN and EN alone groups. SPN plus EN support was associated with a significantly decreased risk of infection (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74–0.93, P = 0.001), although the duration of mechanical ventilation [standardized mean difference (SMD) = − 0.20], length of hospital stay (SMD = 0.12), and ICU stay (SMD = − 0.57) were similar between the two groups (all P > 0.05). Meta-regression analyses showed no significant correlations between all-cause mortality and baseline clinical factors, including patients’ age, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score, time of SPN initiation, and follow-up duration (all P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that SPN plus EN support was associated with a trend toward decreased rate of all-cause mortality in studies with follow-up < 30 days (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.36–1.02, P = 0.058). Trial sequence analysis showed that the required information size for all-cause mortality was 16,972, and the cumulative Z-curve indicated no significant differences in the risk of all-cause mortality between the two groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionSPN plus EN support can significantly reduce the risk of infection, although it has no significant effect on all-cause mortality among critically ill patients. More studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%