These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Nutritional support outcomes in critical care].
    Author: Serón Arbeloa C, Zamora Elson M, Labarta Monzón L, Garrido Ramírez de Arellano I, Lander Azcona A, Marquina Lacueva MI, López Claver JC, Escos Orta J.
    Journal: Nutr Hosp; 2011; 26(6):1469-77. PubMed ID: 22411398.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND & AIMS: To revise the effect of our nutritional support practices on outcomes from critical care patients and propose new study hypothesis. METHODS: Retrospective observational study was conducted in all critically ill patients who had been prescribed nutritional support, through a year time, in an Intensive Care Unit. The nutritional support practices are described. Severity of illness (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), timing and route of nutritional support, prescribed and delivered daily caloric intake for a maximum of 7 days, medical or surgical patient, length of stay in ICU, incidence rate and incidence density of nosocomial infections, and presence of gastrointestinal complications were recorded. Relationships between timing and route of nutritional support and percentage of received/ prescribed calories with mortality, nosocomial infections, days of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the Intensive Care Unit were studied. RESULTS: 102 patients of our intensive care patients received nutritional support and were selected for the study. EN was used in 42 patients (41%), 41 (40%) received TPN and 19 patients (19%) received mixed nutrition. Timing of nutritional support showed a mean of 3.1 ± 1.9 days and was statistically different between patients who survived or died (2.82 ± 1.65 vs. 3.74 ± 2.33 days). Patients received 58 ± 28% of their requirements but this data did not show any difference with mortality and morbidity. There was a statistical difference between the route of nutrition and the following data: type of patient, caloric intake in the study period, length of stay in ICU and days of mechanical ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that nutritional support patients are more severely ill than nonnutritional support patients. Timing of nutritional support was shorter in survivors. Our study confirms a low caloric input in the critically ill patient during the first week of illness, especially in the enteral nutrition group. However this finding was not associated with mortality or morbidity. Parenteral route did show better clinical outcomes than enteral or mixed nutrition. Our findings suggest that a moderate and early caloric intake could obtain better outcomes, independently of the route of nutritional support.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]