Literature DB >> 24500443

Fundamental determinants of protein requirements in the ICU.

Peter J M Weijs1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Currently, feeding the ICU patient is highly discussed. Energy feeding has been the topic of randomized studies, but protein feeding has not. Study results are contradictory on early feeding; however, little is known about early protein requirement. What is this protein requirement based on, therefore what are the fundamental determinants? RECENT
FINDINGS: Recent studies have addressed the importance of protein feeding and/or muscle (protein) wasting in critically ill patients. Targeted feeding has been shown to improve protein balance in one study, and infection rate in one study. Low muscle mass that is already present during ICU admission has been shown to be related to higher mortality, in two studies. Four studies have related muscle wasting to (protein) feeding strategies with very diverse results: Two small studies have reported no advantage [n = 15, computed tomography] or negative impact (n = 62, ultrasound, 50% sepsis patients) of protein on muscle wasting. Two studies, one small (n = 33, computed tomography) and one very large (n = 1372, Subjective Global Assessment), have reported a positive impact of (early) feeding on muscle wasting.
SUMMARY: Fundamental to adequate protein feeding in critically ill patients, at least 1.2 g protein/kg per day, is targeted energy feeding using indirect calorimetry. The level of protein requirement is related to fat free mass or muscle mass, which makes sex and BMI also relevant. Targeted early protein feeding is found to improve short-term outcome, reduction of muscle wasting and hospital mortality. Long-term outcome of protein feeding has not been studied. However, targeted protein feeding may be harmful in sepsis patients. Up to now, we lack biomarkers that provide caregivers with an instrument to increase protein feeding up to the individual protein requirement of the critically ill patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24500443     DOI: 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000029

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care        ISSN: 1363-1950            Impact factor:   4.294


  6 in total

Review 1.  When a calorie isn't just a calorie: a revised look at nutrition in critically ill patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury.

Authors:  Mridula Nadamuni; Andrea H Venable; Sarah C Huen
Journal:  Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 3.416

Review 2.  Effect of Early Nutritional Support on Clinical Outcomes of Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Jun-Kwon Cha; Hyung-Sook Kim; Eun-Ji Kim; Eun-Sook Lee; Jae-Ho Lee; In-Ae Song
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-05-31       Impact factor: 6.706

3.  Patients' poor performance status is an independent risk factor for urosepsis induced by kidney and ureteral stones.

Authors:  Mika Kino; Takumi Hayashi; Daichi Hino; Takako Nakada; Hiroki Kitoh; Koichiro Akakura
Journal:  Urolithiasis       Date:  2021-03-23       Impact factor: 3.436

Review 4.  Nutrition in critical illness: a current conundrum.

Authors:  L John Hoffer; Bruce R Bistrian
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2016-10-18

Review 5.  Enteral glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Arthur R H van Zanten; Rupinder Dhaliwal; Dominique Garrel; Daren K Heyland
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 9.097

6.  Enteral Glutamine Administration in Critically Ill Nonseptic Patients Does Not Trigger Arginine Synthesis.

Authors:  Mechteld A R Vermeulen; Saskia J H Brinkmann; Nikki Buijs; Albertus Beishuizen; Pierre M Bet; Alexander P J Houdijk; Johannes B van Goudoever; Paul A M van Leeuwen
Journal:  J Nutr Metab       Date:  2016-04-20
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.