Susan Hamilton1, Diane M McAleer, Katelyn Ariagno, Megan Barrett, Nicole Stenquist, Christopher P Duggan, Nilesh M Mehta. 1. 1Department of Cardiovascular/Critical Care Nursing, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. 2Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA. 3Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Pain and Perioperative Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of implementing an enteral nutrition algorithm on achieving optimal enteral nutrition delivery in the PICU. DESIGN: Prospective pre/post implementation audit of enteral nutrition practices. SETTING: One 29-bed medical/surgical PICU in a freestanding, university-affiliated children's hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted to the PICU over two 4-week periods pre and post implementation, with a stay of more than 24 hours who received enteral nutrition. INTERVENTIONS: Based on the results of our previous study, we developed and systematically implemented a stepwise, evidence and consensus-based algorithm for initiating, advancing, and maintaining enteral nutrition in critically ill children. Three months after implementation, we prospectively recorded clinical characteristics, nutrient delivery, enteral nutrition interruptions, parenteral nutrition use, and ability to reach energy goal in eligible children over a 4-week period. Clinical and nutritional variables were compared between the pre and postintervention cohorts. Time to achieving energy goal was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty patients were eligible for this study and were compared to a cohort of 80 patients in the preimplementation audit. There were no significant differences in median age, gender, need for mechanical ventilation, time to initiating enteral nutrition, or use of postpyloric feeding between the two cohorts. We recorded a significant decrease in the number of avoidable episodes of enteral nutrition interruption (3 vs 51, p < 0.0001) and the prevalence and duration of parenteral nutrition dependence in patients with avoidable enteral nutrition interruptions in the postintervention cohort. Median time to reach energy goal decreased from 4 days to 1 day (p < 0.0001), with a higher proportion of patients reaching this goal (99% vs 61%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an enteral nutrition algorithm significantly improved enteral nutrition delivery and decreased reliance on parenteral nutrition in critically ill children. Energy intake goal was reached earlier in a higher proportion of patients.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of implementing an enteral nutrition algorithm on achieving optimal enteral nutrition delivery in the PICU. DESIGN: Prospective pre/post implementation audit of enteral nutrition practices. SETTING: One 29-bed medical/surgical PICU in a freestanding, university-affiliated children's hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted to the PICU over two 4-week periods pre and post implementation, with a stay of more than 24 hours who received enteral nutrition. INTERVENTIONS: Based on the results of our previous study, we developed and systematically implemented a stepwise, evidence and consensus-based algorithm for initiating, advancing, and maintaining enteral nutrition in critically ill children. Three months after implementation, we prospectively recorded clinical characteristics, nutrient delivery, enteral nutrition interruptions, parenteral nutrition use, and ability to reach energy goal in eligible children over a 4-week period. Clinical and nutritional variables were compared between the pre and postintervention cohorts. Time to achieving energy goal was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier statistical analysis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty patients were eligible for this study and were compared to a cohort of 80 patients in the preimplementation audit. There were no significant differences in median age, gender, need for mechanical ventilation, time to initiating enteral nutrition, or use of postpyloric feeding between the two cohorts. We recorded a significant decrease in the number of avoidable episodes of enteral nutrition interruption (3 vs 51, p < 0.0001) and the prevalence and duration of parenteral nutrition dependence in patients with avoidable enteral nutrition interruptions in the postintervention cohort. Median time to reach energy goal decreased from 4 days to 1 day (p < 0.0001), with a higher proportion of patients reaching this goal (99% vs 61%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of an enteral nutrition algorithm significantly improved enteral nutrition delivery and decreased reliance on parenteral nutrition in critically ill children. Energy intake goal was reached earlier in a higher proportion of patients.
Authors: Theresa A Mikhailov; Evelyn M Kuhn; Jennifer Manzi; Melissa Christensen; Maureen Collins; Ann-Marie Brown; Ronald Dechert; Matthew C Scanlon; Martin K Wakeham; Praveen S Goday Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Jessie M Hulst; Koen F Joosten; Dick Tibboel; Johannes B van Goudoever Journal: Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.294
Authors: Alysha Keehn; Christina O'Brien; Vera Mazurak; Kim Brunet-Wood; Ari Joffe; Allan de Caen; Bodil Larsen Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 4.016
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
Authors: Nancy J Braudis; Martha A Q Curley; Karen Beaupre; Kristi C Thomas; Gina Hardiman; Peter Laussen; Kimberlee Gauvreau; Ravi R Thiagarajan Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 3.624
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: Vijay Srinivasan; Natalie R Hasbani; Nilesh M Mehta; Sharon Y Irving; Sarah B Kandil; H Christine Allen; Katri V Typpo; Natalie Z Cvijanovich; E Vincent S Faustino; David Wypij; Michael S D Agus; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Scott L Weiss; Mark J Peters; Waleed Alhazzani; Michael S D Agus; Heidi R Flori; David P Inwald; Simon Nadel; Luregn J Schlapbach; Robert C Tasker; Andrew C Argent; Joe Brierley; Joseph Carcillo; Enitan D Carrol; Christopher L Carroll; Ira M Cheifetz; Karen Choong; Jeffry J Cies; Andrea T Cruz; Daniele De Luca; Akash Deep; Saul N Faust; Claudio Flauzino De Oliveira; Mark W Hall; Paul Ishimine; Etienne Javouhey; Koen F M Joosten; Poonam Joshi; Oliver Karam; Martin C J Kneyber; Joris Lemson; Graeme MacLaren; Nilesh M Mehta; Morten Hylander Møller; Christopher J L Newth; Trung C Nguyen; Akira Nishisaki; Mark E Nunnally; Margaret M Parker; Raina M Paul; Adrienne G Randolph; Suchitra Ranjit; Lewis H Romer; Halden F Scott; Lyvonne N Tume; Judy T Verger; Eric A Williams; Joshua Wolf; Hector R Wong; Jerry J Zimmerman; Niranjan Kissoon; Pierre Tissieres Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michael F Canarie; Suzanne Barry; Christopher L Carroll; Amanda Hassinger; Sarah Kandil; Simon Li; Matthew Pinto; Stacey L Valentine; E Vincent S Faustino Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Amy Jo Lisanti; Melanie Savoca; J William Gaynor; Maria R Mascarenhas; Chitra Ravishankar; Erin Sullivan; Karyn Pieciak; Andrew Costarino; Jodi Chen; Andrea Kennedy; Robert Olsen; Jungwon Min; Antara Mondal; Jing Huang; Sharon Y Irving Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 4.406