BACKGROUND & AIMS: Enteral nutrition is the feeding method of choice during critical illness, but in some cases as few as 25% are fed appropriately. The aim was to retrospectively review the administration of nutrition to critically ill children. METHODS: The notes of 95 children over the age of 1 year who were in PICU>or=3 days were reviewed and information related to the delivery of nutrition was obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-nine per cent were fed within 24h of admission. Enteral nutrition was administered 54% of the time, 10% required parenteral nutrition and 9.5% received no nutritional support. Children only received a median 58.8 (range 0-277)% of their energy requirements, which could not be optimised until the 10th intensive care day. Energy intake was greater when supplemented with parenteral nutrition. Parenteral nutrition administration was interrupted 3 times while enteral nutrition was stopped 264 times, mainly to allow other clinical procedures to take place. For 75% of the study time, children had abnormal bowel patterns. Seventy-nine per cent were constipated for 3-21 days and 43% had diarrhoea of unknown aetiology. CONCLUSION: This was a retrospective study to describe the efficiency of nutritional support in critically ill children. We have shown that it is possible to administer enteral nutrition safely. However, the difference between desirable intake and actual intake achieved suggests that a more pro-active approach should be adopted.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Enteral nutrition is the feeding method of choice during critical illness, but in some cases as few as 25% are fed appropriately. The aim was to retrospectively review the administration of nutrition to critically ill children. METHODS: The notes of 95 children over the age of 1 year who were in PICU>or=3 days were reviewed and information related to the delivery of nutrition was obtained. RESULTS: Fifty-nine per cent were fed within 24h of admission. Enteral nutrition was administered 54% of the time, 10% required parenteral nutrition and 9.5% received no nutritional support. Children only received a median 58.8 (range 0-277)% of their energy requirements, which could not be optimised until the 10th intensive care day. Energy intake was greater when supplemented with parenteral nutrition. Parenteral nutrition administration was interrupted 3 times while enteral nutrition was stopped 264 times, mainly to allow other clinical procedures to take place. For 75% of the study time, children had abnormal bowel patterns. Seventy-nine per cent were constipated for 3-21 days and 43% had diarrhoea of unknown aetiology. CONCLUSION: This was a retrospective study to describe the efficiency of nutritional support in critically ill children. We have shown that it is possible to administer enteral nutrition safely. However, the difference between desirable intake and actual intake achieved suggests that a more pro-active approach should be adopted.
Authors: Nilesh M Mehta; Lori J Bechard; David Zurakowski; Christopher P Duggan; Daren K Heyland Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Nilesh M Mehta; Dianne McAleer; Susan Hamilton; Elizabeth Naples; Kristen Leavitt; Paul Mitchell; Christopher Duggan Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Martijn van der Kuip; Michiel J S Oosterveld; Marian A E van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren; K de Meer; Harry N Lafeber; Reinoud J B J Gemke Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2004-06-12 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nilesh M Mehta; Lori J Bechard; Naomi Cahill; Miao Wang; Andrew Day; Christopher P Duggan; Daren K Heyland Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.598