Ella Terblanche1, Chris Remmington1. 1. Adult Critical Care Unit, The Royal Brompton & Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nutritional support in the critically ill aims to avoid under and overfeeding, adjusting to changes in energy expenditure during critical illness. The sedation propofol provides significant fat and energy load. We investigated whether changing from 1% to a 2% propofol, would decrease non-nutritional energy, avoid energy overfeeding and increase the amount of protein delivered. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed. The primary outcome was protein delivery. Secondary outcomes were energy from propofol fat and the total energy delivered from nutrition and propofol. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients were investigated, with 50 patients in each group. The propofol dose was comparable for each group. The nutrition energy prescribed was significantly less for the 1% compared to 2% group, taking the energy from propofol into consideration. Both groups had similar protein targets, although the amount delivered was significantly higher in the 2% group. Thirty-six percent of individuals receiving 1% exceeded 45% of total energy from fat. The poor delivery of nutrition resulted in inadequate energy and protein, irrespective of propofol dose. CONCLUSIONS: We investigated the impact of propofol on energy overfeeding and under delivery of protein, and highlighted suboptimal nutritional provision. Work is needed to investigate the harm that high-fat delivery may pose in light of poor nutrition delivery.
BACKGROUND: Nutritional support in the critically ill aims to avoid under and overfeeding, adjusting to changes in energy expenditure during critical illness. The sedation propofol provides significant fat and energy load. We investigated whether changing from 1% to a 2% propofol, would decrease non-nutritional energy, avoid energy overfeeding and increase the amount of protein delivered. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was performed. The primary outcome was protein delivery. Secondary outcomes were energy from propofol fat and the total energy delivered from nutrition and propofol. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients were investigated, with 50 patients in each group. The propofol dose was comparable for each group. The nutrition energy prescribed was significantly less for the 1% compared to 2% group, taking the energy from propofol into consideration. Both groups had similar protein targets, although the amount delivered was significantly higher in the 2% group. Thirty-six percent of individuals receiving 1% exceeded 45% of total energy from fat. The poor delivery of nutrition resulted in inadequate energy and protein, irrespective of propofol dose. CONCLUSIONS: We investigated the impact of propofol on energy overfeeding and under delivery of protein, and highlighted suboptimal nutritional provision. Work is needed to investigate the harm that high-fat delivery may pose in light of poor nutrition delivery.