Suzie Ferrie1,2, Erica Tsang1. 1. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 2. University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutrition monitoring in the context of critical care presents unique challenges. Traditionally used anthropometric and biochemical markers may be difficult to obtain or confounded by factors such as fluid status and the inflammatory response. A previous survey identified 15 parameters in common use, all of which have confounding influences during critical illness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted to assess current use of commonly used nutrition-monitoring parameters and to explore other possible methods that might be more useful. More than 1000 journal articles were reviewed to identify indicators of nutrition status or nutrition progress that have been used in ICU studies. The most recent 200 articles were examined to quantify the number of occurrences for each indicator. Each parameter was rated for availability and feasibility in the ICU. RESULTS: There were 53 parameters found, including the 15 already identified as commonly used; 27 were used in ≥3 recent studies. Less-well-established nutrition indicators with potential for use in the ICU (moderate or high feasibility and availability) included ultrasound measurement of arm or leg muscle thickness, fatigue scoring with the Chalder scale, urinary creatinine assay, and serum insulin-like growth factor 1 level. None of these was among the commonly used indicators in recent studies. CONCLUSION: This study identifies commonly used nutrition-monitoring parameters and discusses their feasibility and availability in the critical care setting. Further investigation of nutrition indicators in ICU is needed, ideally as part of a randomized trial to reduce the effect of the many possible confounding factors.
BACKGROUND: Nutrition monitoring in the context of critical care presents unique challenges. Traditionally used anthropometric and biochemical markers may be difficult to obtain or confounded by factors such as fluid status and the inflammatory response. A previous survey identified 15 parameters in common use, all of which have confounding influences during critical illness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted to assess current use of commonly used nutrition-monitoring parameters and to explore other possible methods that might be more useful. More than 1000 journal articles were reviewed to identify indicators of nutrition status or nutrition progress that have been used in ICU studies. The most recent 200 articles were examined to quantify the number of occurrences for each indicator. Each parameter was rated for availability and feasibility in the ICU. RESULTS: There were 53 parameters found, including the 15 already identified as commonly used; 27 were used in ≥3 recent studies. Less-well-established nutrition indicators with potential for use in the ICU (moderate or high feasibility and availability) included ultrasound measurement of arm or leg muscle thickness, fatigue scoring with the Chalder scale, urinary creatinine assay, and serum insulin-like growth factor 1 level. None of these was among the commonly used indicators in recent studies. CONCLUSION: This study identifies commonly used nutrition-monitoring parameters and discusses their feasibility and availability in the critical care setting. Further investigation of nutrition indicators in ICU is needed, ideally as part of a randomized trial to reduce the effect of the many possible confounding factors.
Authors: Carlos Alfredo Galindo Martín; Reyna Del Carmen Ubeda Zelaya; Enrique Monares Zepeda; Octavio Augusto Lescas Méndez Journal: J Nutr Metab Date: 2018-04-01