Sheng Wu1, Jian Lou2, Peng Xu3, Rubin Luo4, Libin Li3. 1. Department of Neurology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 2. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 3. Intensive Care Unit, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 4. Intensive Care Unit, Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. Email: zr_lrb@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the nutritional status of critically ill patients with COVID-19 and to determine which route of nutrition support is advantageous. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study was conducted in the ICU of a designated COVID-19 hospital. Patients were divided into an enteral nutrition (EN) group and parenteral nutrition (PN) group according to the initial route of nutrition support. NRS-2002 and NUTRIC were used to assess nutritional status. Blood nutritional markers such as albumin, total protein and hemoglobin were compared at baseline and seven days later. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were enrolled in the study - 14 in the EN group and 13 in the PN group - and there were no significant demographic differences between groups. Most patients (96.3% NRS2002 score ≥5, 85.2% NUTRIC score ≥5) were at high nutritional risk. There was no significant difference in baseline albumin, total protein and hemoglobin levels between groups. After 7 days, albumin levels were significantly higher in the EN group than in the PN group (p=0.030). There was no significant difference in the other two indicators. The 28-day mortality was 50% in the EN group and 76.9% in the PN group. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed significant differences between the groups (p=0.030). Cox proportional risk regression indicated that route of nutrition support was also an independent prognostic risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of nutritional risk in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is very high. Early EN may be beneficial to patient outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the nutritional status of critically illpatients with COVID-19 and to determine which route of nutrition support is advantageous. METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective study was conducted in the ICU of a designated COVID-19 hospital. Patients were divided into an enteral nutrition (EN) group and parenteral nutrition (PN) group according to the initial route of nutrition support. NRS-2002 and NUTRIC were used to assess nutritional status. Blood nutritional markers such as albumin, total protein and hemoglobin were compared at baseline and seven days later. The primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 27 patients were enrolled in the study - 14 in the EN group and 13 in the PN group - and there were no significant demographic differences between groups. Most patients (96.3% NRS2002 score ≥5, 85.2% NUTRIC score ≥5) were at high nutritional risk. There was no significant difference in baseline albumin, total protein and hemoglobin levels between groups. After 7 days, albumin levels were significantly higher in the EN group than in the PN group (p=0.030). There was no significant difference in the other two indicators. The 28-day mortality was 50% in the EN group and 76.9% in the PN group. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed significant differences between the groups (p=0.030). Cox proportional risk regression indicated that route of nutrition support was also an independent prognostic risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of nutritional risk in critically illpatients with COVID-19 is very high. Early EN may be beneficial to patient outcomes.