0699nl

TOP NUTRITION NEWSLETTER Volume 5 No 6: June 2002

Editorial

This is the sixth issue of TOP NUTRITION NEWSLETTER in 2002. In this issue the following topics are updated for your interest.

[Standards, Options and Recommendations for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients]

Early versus late enteral feeding of mechanically ventilated patients: results of a clinical trial.

Current aspects of mucosal immunology and its influence by nutrition.

Postinjury enteral tolerance is reliably achieved by a standardized protocol.

Any comments or suggestions to include the interesting topics are welcomed for future issues.

Dr Shwe Win
Editor

[Standards, Options and Recommendations for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients]

Reference: Bull Cancer 2002;89(4):381-398.

Context: The "Standards, Options and Recommendations" (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centers (FNCLCC), the 20 French cancer centers and specialists from French public university and general hospitals and private clinics. Its main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and outcome for cancer patients. The methodology is based on literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. Objectives: To develop, according to the definitions of the Standards, Options and Recommendations, clinical practice guidelines for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients. Methods: Data were identified by searching Medline , web sites and the personal reference lists of members of the expert groups, then submitted for review to 75 independent reviewers. Results: The main recommendations for nutritional support in bone marrow transplant patients are: 1) Nutritional evaluation and monitoring may be proposed to bone-marrow transplant recipients (options). 2) Nutritional evaluation consists of body weight assessment and percent weight loss evaluation (standard, expert agreement). 3) Nutritional monitoring should include daily weight monitoring, clinical monitoring of hydration and assessment of daily dietary intake (standard, expert agreement). 4) Artificial nutrition is recommended in immuno-suppressed bone marrow transplant patients. This is not systematically indicated in other situation (standard). 5) Artificial nutrition, intravenous hydration and oral nutrition can be proposed to bone-marrow transplant recipients (option). 6) There is no standard modality for artificial nutrition (level of evidence B 1). Exclusive enteral or parenteral nutrition and enteral plus parenteral nutrition may be proposed to bone-marrow tranplant patients (options). 7) Lipid intake representing up to 30% of the non-protein caloric intake should be supplied to patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation (standard, level of evidence B1). 8) Oral supplementation with nitrogen substrates or glutamine is not recommended. Parenteral glutamine supplementation may be proposed (option).

Early versus late enteral feeding of mechanically ventilated patients: results of a clinical trial.

Reference: JPEN 2002;26(3):174-81.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to compare 2 strategies for the administration of enteral feeding to mechanically ventilated medical patients. METHODS: The prospective, controlled, clinical trial was carried out in a medical intensive care unit (19 beds) in a university-affiliated, urban teaching hospital. Between May 1999 and December 2000, 150 patients were enrolled. Patients were scheduled to receive their estimated total daily enteral nutritional requirements on either day 1 (early-feeding group) or day 5 (late-feeding group) of mechanical ventilation. Patients in the late-feeding group were also scheduled to receive 20% of their estimated daily enteral nutritional requirements during the first 4 days of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Seventy-five (50%) consecutive eligible patients were entered into the early-feeding group and 75 (50%) patients were enrolled in the late-feeding group. During the 5 five days of mechanical ventilation, the total intake of calories (2370 +/- 2000 kcal versus 629 +/- 575 kcal; p < .001) and protein (93.6 +/- 77.2 g versus 26.7 +/- 26.6 g; p < .001) were statistically greater for patients in the early-feeding group. Patients in the early-feeding group had statistically greater incidences of ventilator-associated pneumonia (49.3% versus 30.7%; p = .020) and diarrhea associated with Clostridium difficile infection (13.3% versus 4.0%; p = .042). The early-feeding group also had statistically longer intensive care unit (13.6 +/- 14.2 days versus 9.8 +/- 7.4 days; p = .043) and hospital lengths of stay (22.9 +/- 19.7 days versus 16.7 +/- 12.5 days; p = .023) compared with patients in the late-feeding group. No statistical difference in hospital mortality was observed between patients in the early-feeding and late-feeding groups (20.0% versus 26.7%; p = .334). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of more aggressive early enteral nutrition to mechanically ventilated medical patients is associated with greater infectious complications and prolonged lengths of stay in the hospital. Clinicians must balance the potential for complications resulting from early enteral feeding with the expected benefits of such therapy.

Current aspects of mucosal immunology and its influence by nutrition.

Reference: Am J Surg 2002;183(4):390-8.

BACKGROUND: A significant body of clinical literature demonstrates that enteral feeding significantly reduces the incidence of pneumonia compared to patients fed parenterally. An immunologic link between the gastrointestinal tract and respiratory tract is postulated via the common mucosal immune hypothesis. This hypothesis states that cells are sensitized within the Peyer's patches of the small intestine and are subsequently distributed to submucosal locations in both intestinal and extra intestinal sites. This system is exquisitely sensitive to route and type of nutrition. DATA SOURCE: This review examines the laboratory data regarding cell numbers, cell phenotypes, cytokine profile, and immunologic function in both intestinal and extra intestinal sites in animals that have been administered either parenteral feeding or various types of enteral feeding. It also establishes links between a specific nutrient, glutamine, the enteric nervous system, by way of neuropeptides, and mucosal immunity. CONCLUSION: Progress in understanding relationships between nutrient availability, enteric nervous system stimulation, and nutrient delivery on mucosal immunity offers opportunities to explore immune systems previously not appreciated by clinicians and basic scientists. These opportunities offer new challenges to the physician scientist, basic scientist, and clinician to understand, manipulate, and apply these concepts to the critically ill patient population by favorably influencing immunologic barriers and the inflammatory response.

Postinjury enteral tolerance is reliably achieved by a standardized protocol.

Reference: J Surg Res 2002;104(1):70-5.

Background. Postinjury enteral nutrition (EN) is beneficial. Unfortunately, severely injured patients who should benefit most are frequently intolerant. To assist in maximizing enteral tolerance in the critically injured, we first implemented a prospective analysis of the effectiveness of a standardized enteral protocol (EP) at a single institution followed by a prospective multi-institutional analysis of its implementation. Methods. Tolerance parameters were prospectively collected on severely injured patients at a single (Phase I) and then multiple (Phase II) institutions. EN was begun at 15 cc/h and advanced every 12 h to a patient specific targeted goal. Intolerance symptoms (high nasogastric output/emesis, abdominal distention, and diarrhea) were assessed and graded every 12 h and managed using a standardized protocol. Tolerance was characterized as early (during initial advancement of feeds) or late (after standard goal) and classified as good (EN advanced per EP), moderate (rate decreased per EP), poor (EN held per EP), or EN discontinued (and TPN begun). Results. In Phase I patients (ISS = 25 +/- 3) early tolerance was good in 82% (14/17) while late good tolerance decreased to 65% (11/17). In Phase II patients (ISS = 30 +/- 2), early tolerance was good in 85% (41/49) and late tolerance was good in 80% (39/49). Moderate intolerance was primarily seen in Phase II patients and due to high gastric output in patients fed proximal to the ligament of Treitz (13/16). Overall 88% (15/17) of Phase I and 100% (49/49) of Phase II patients were successfully maintained on EN. Conclusions. Severely injured patients exhibited good tolerance to EN when managed using a standardized protocol at four Level I trauma centers. Moderate intolerance was associated with high gastric output and may be lessened by feeding distal to the ligament of Treitz.