Download - PICU Nutrition

http://ncp.sagepub.com

Nutrition in Clinical Practice

DOI: 10.1177/0884533609335175 2009; 24; 377 Nutr Clin Pract

Nilesh M. Mehta Approach to Enteral Feeding in the PICU

http://ncp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/377 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

The American Society for Parenteral & Enteral Nutrition

can be found at:Nutrition in Clinical Practice Additional services and information for

http://ncp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ncp.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

by Nilesh Mehta on June 5, 2009 http://ncp.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.nutritioncare.org/

http://ncp.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://ncp.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


377

Nutrition in Clinical PracticeVolume 24 Number 3

June/July 2009 377-387© 2009 American Society for

Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition10.1177/0884533609335175

http://ncp.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Review

The provision of optimal nutrition support during critical illness is a fundamental goal of critical care that requires careful assessment of energy needs

and provision of macronutrients and micronutrients through the best route. Children (ages 1 month to 21 years) admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) may already have some degree of malnutrition. In addi-tion, critical illness places variable energy demands on the child that cannot always be accurately predicted using standard equations for calculating energy expenditure.1,2 The accurate measurement of energy expenditure is not always feasible. Thus, critically ill children remain at risk of underfeeding and overfeeding.3,4 The PICU environ-ment poses unique challenges to achieving nutrition goals for the critically ill child. Nutrition support in the PICU is often in conflict with the complexity of care provided to acutely ill children, including diagnostic and therapeutic procedures that require fasting. In addition, opportunities to feed children are often missed for a variety of reasons, some of which are avoidable.5

From the Division of Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Address correspondence to Nilesh M. Mehta, MD, DCH, Division of Critical Care Medicine, Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA 02115; e-mail: [email protected].

Nutrition support in the PICU is achieved via the enteral and/or the parenteral route. There has been a resurgence of interest in the provision of enteral nutrients to the critically ill patient. Based on perceived benefits of enteral nutrition (EN) over parenteral nutrition (PN), the enteral delivery of nutrients has been widely adopted as the preferred mode of feeding critically ill patients with a functional gastrointestinal (GI) tract. However, optimal EN delivery at the bedside requires a sustained and multi-disciplinary effort to surmount barriers to enteral feeding during critical illness. The rationale and challenges to the delivery and maintenance of optimal enteral feeding dur-ing critical illness and some suggested strategies are pre-sented here.

Benefits of EN During Critical Illness

EN is the preferred route for nutrition support in criti-cally ill children and adults.6 EN is physiologic and has been shown to be more cost-effective without the added risk of nosocomial infection inherent with PN.7 EN is associated with decreased infectious complications and decreased length of hospital stay when compared with PN in adult critical care populations.8-10 In addition to provid-ing nutrients essential for growth, EN may have anti- inflammatory effects by lowering the expression of cytokines

The pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) environment poses unique challenges to achieving enteral nutrition (EN) goals for the critically ill child. Nutrition support in the PICU is often in conflict with the complexity of care provided to acutely ill chil-dren. A significant proportion of eligible patients do not receive optimal enteral nutrition for avoidable reasons. Early institution of EN is recommended and the gastric route is preferred because of ease of administration and reduced costs compared with the transpyloric route. In patients with poor gastric empty-ing or in cases where a trial of gastric feeding has failed, transpyloric or postpyloric feeding may be used to decrease the risk of aspiration and to improve enteral feed tolerance. However, there is no evidence of benefit for routine use of small bowel feeding in all patients admitted to the PICU. The placement of

blind nasoenteric feeding tubes can be technically challenging, is not without complications, and requires local expertise and experience for successful placement and maintenance. A proto-colized approach to selecting the optimal route and advancing enteral feedings may optimize EN delivery. Institutional practice guidelines based on consensus, available evidence, and national guidelines may decrease time to reaching caloric goal, improve protein balance, and potentially affect clinical outcomes. The rationale and challenges to the delivery and maintenance of optimal EN, and strategies to achieve optimal EN during critical illness, are discussed. (Nutr Clin Pract. 2009;24:377-387)

Keywords: enteral nutrition; child; critical care; intensive care; intensive care units, pediatric

Approach to Enteral Feeding in the PICU

Nilesh M. Mehta, MD, DCHFinancial disclosure: none declared.



378 Nutrition in Clinical Practice / Vol. 24, No. 3, June/July 2009

such as interleukin-6.11 Using differential absorption and urinary recovery of lactulose and L-rhamnose, EN has been shown to have beneficial effects on intestinal mucosal permeability in critically ill adults.12 With the benefits of EN shown in animal models and its perceived role in improving outcomes in adult critical care popula-tion, most PICUs have adopted institutional guidelines promoting early EN. The preference of EN has not been backed by randomized control trials. However, enteral feeding practices have been uniformly promoted by con-sensus-based guidelines in both adult and pediatric popu-lations, mainly by extrapolation from adult literature.6,8 The introduction of specialized enteral nutrients or phar-maconutrients during critical illness with the aim to modulate the stress response is an area of intense inves-tigation. Animal and adult data appear to suggest benefit of using agents such as ω-3 fatty acids, glutamine, growth hormone, and antioxidants in select groups of critically ill patients. The discussion of immunonutrition is beyond the scope of this article, and readers are referred to com-prehensive reviews of the subject elsewhere.13-15 Future studies will illuminate the clinical utility of these agents, their safety profile, and efficacy in improving specific outcomes during critical illness. The administration of enteral immunonutrients in critically ill children outside the research arena cannot be recommended as yet.

Initiating EN: Early EN

Based on the results of prospective, randomized, con-trolled trials, the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines for Nutrition Support strongly recommend the use of early EN (within 24-48 hours after ICU admission) for mechanically ventilated critically ill adults.8 Despite the absence of sound evidence to support the superiority of one route of feeding over the other, the enteral route has been successfully used for nutrition support of the criti-cally ill child.16-23 Early EN is well tolerated in patients with a functional GI tract and decreases time to reach caloric goals.17,18 Early aggressive enteral feeding has been shown to increase protein intake resulting in improved protein balance, which is desirable during the acute phase of the stress response.24 In children with severe burn injury, the administration of early (within 24 hours of admission) EN improves caloric intake and pro-tein balance and decreases mortality, without increased adverse events, when compared with EN delayed for 48 hours after admission.25,26 PN may be used to supplement or replace EN in those patients in whom EN alone is unable to meet nutrition goals.

On the other hand, among adults admitted to a sur-gical intensive care unit (ICU) with hypovolemic shock after trauma, early EN was associated with higher rates of GI ischemia and multiorgan dysfunction.27 In children

with hemodynamic instability, EN is often withheld based on the requirement of vasoactive medications. Most med-ical centers tend to avoid using EN for patients who are receiving multiple vasopressors for hypotension or who have evidence of bowel ischemia, to limit the risk of small bowel necrosis associated with rapid enteral feeding.28 In a retrospective review of children receiving inotropes or vasopressors during their PICU stay, EN was well toler-ated without adverse events.29 Children in this study were reported to receive dopamine, epinephrine, norepine-phrine, or phenylephrine while they were fed enterally. A majority of children in this study were on dopamine either alone or in combination with another cardiovascular medication (norepinephrine, dobutamine, epinephrine, or phenylephrine). The overall rate of enteral feeding interruption was high (71% had at least 1 episode of stop-page). EN was interrupted for perceived intolerance in 29% of the children in this cohort, accounting for a quar-ter of the episodes of EN interruptions. Of note, none of the children in this study were on vasopressin infusion, and significant GI bleeding was reported in 2 children, both with multisystem organ dysfunction and coagulopa-thy. In animal models of septic shock, use of vasopressor infusions has been associated with GI mucosal ischemia and compromised splanchnic microcirculation.30,31 In children with septic shock requiring high catecholamine or vasopressin infusions, the benefits of EN must be weighed against the potential effects of these drugs on the splanchnic circulation.

Most centers have adopted strategies to implement early EN in eligible patients, using EN protocols to maxi-mize caloric intake and improve feed tolerance.17,21,22 EN may be delayed or avoided in a subgroup of PICU patients, which includes children requiring endotracheal intubation within 4 hours of ICU admission, patients with hemodynamic instability and increasing vasopressor support, patients with postoperative ileus, patients with active upper GI bleeding, patients with risk of intestinal ischemia, patients with intestinal obstruction, and patients who have undergone allogenic bone marrow transplant or stem cell transplant. In patients in whom EN is contrain-dicated, PN may be used if the anticipated period of fast-ing is longer than 5 days or even earlier in patients with existing malnutrition or in neonates with low birth weight.6,32

In patients with a functional GI tract, nonvolitional tube feeding into the stomach or intestine is provided when oral feeding is unavailable (Figure 1). The illus-trated nutrition support guideline was developed at our institution based on existing local practice and a review of literature where available. A nutrition support plan is developed for each patient in consult with a dedicated registered dietitian in the PICU. Caloric requirements, type of enteral formulation, route of feeding, initial feed-ing rate, and advancement are planned.6 In patients with



Enteral Feeding in the PICU / Mehta 379

a functional GI tract, we prefer to use the enteral route for nutrient delivery where possible. We routinely start with full-strength feedings. The starting volume of enteral feedings depends on the route of feeding and tolerance.

Gastric feedings are started as boluses at regular inter-vals. In patients who are intolerant to gastric bolus feedings (usually manifested as increased gastric residual volume, vomiting, discomfort, or distension), administration of

Oral route unavailableOR

Unable to protect airway

Nutrition assessment, Weight on admissionIdentify caloric goal5

NASOGASTRIC / Gastric TubeFEEDINGS BS

BS present / No gastric distension

GOAL CALORIES

START: ½ Goal volume(Full-strength feedingvolume required to reachcaloric goal). Bolus feedings divided q3 hr (if<6 months) orq 4 hrs (if > 6 months of age).

If volume intolerant, trysmaller volumes morefrequently or continuousfeedings. ADVANCE: Increaseeach feeding by 25%volume until goalreached.

GOAL CALORIES

START: 1-2 mL/kg/hr(max 25mL/hr)(or 0.5mL/kg/hr if riskof gut ischemia)

ADVANCE:<1 yr: 1-5mL/hr q4hrs>1 yr: 5-20mL/hrq4hrsuntil goal reached.

Continuous Feedings

TROPHIC FEEDING

1-2 mL/kg/hror20 mL/hr

Full-strength formulaor breast milk

EVALUATE FOR RISK OF ASPIRATION7

(Depressed gag/cough, altered sensorium, delayed gastric emptying,GE reflux, severe bronchospasm, history of reflux)

NOASPIRATION

RISK

ASPIRATIONRISK

TRANSPYLORIC (Nasojejunal /Gastrojejunal) FEEDINGS

With gastric decompression

Bolus Feedings

CONSTIPATION

(For age >1 month / non-neutropenic)

NO STOOL AFTER 48 HOURS OF EN

Day#1Prune juice

Day#2 Glycerin supp.

Docusate(< 3yrs: PO 10 mg BID)(3-6 yrs: PO 20 mg BID)(6-12 yrs: PO 50 mg BID)(≥12 yrs: PO 100 mg BID)

Senna (Discontinue after 2 normalstools)(1 mo-2 yrs: PO 2.5 mL BID)(2-5 yrs: PO 3.75 mL BID)(5-12 yrs: PO 7.5 mL BID)(≥12 yrs: PO 1 Tab BID)

Fleet Enema (for age > 2 yrs)-Pediatric Fleets enema: 2-12 yrs (66mL/bottle)1 enema-Adult Fleet enema: ≥12 yrs

DIARRHEA(>4 Loose stools/24 hrs)

Discontinue laxatives (senna) andstool softeners (docusate)

Discontinue any sorbitol-containingmedication

Review osmolarity of formula

Consider withdrawal from opiates

Consider change in formula, or holdtube feedings until diarrhea resolves

Stool viral studies / Clostridia (C.)difficile

Stool C. difficile toxin and culture (if onantimicrobials).

HEAD OF BED elevated 30o unless contraindicated7

ENTERAL FEEDING INTOLERANCEGastric residual volumes (GRV) recorded prior to each bolus feed or q 4 hrs in patients oncontinuous gastric feedings with abdominal discomfort, distension or emesis.

If GRV>150 mL; or 5ml/kg, or > ½ volume of previous feeding; or > total 2 hourly infusion rate inpatients on continuous feeding –hold feedings and repeat GRV after 2 hrs. Ifrepeat GRV is elevated, hold feedings and monitor GRV of 4 hrs.

If abdominal distension, (abdominal girth increased for 2 consecutive measurements)or abdominal discomfort or emesis x 2 –hold feedings for 4 hrs and reassess.

(+)

NORMAL GASTRICEMPTYING

(+)

(−)

ABNORMAL GASTRICEMPTYING

(−)

Figure 1. Enteral nutrition support algorithm.GE, gastroesophageal; BS, bowel sounds; EN, enteral nutrition; PO, per oral; BID, twice daily; q, every




small volumes on a frequent basis may be tried. Failing these measures, continuous gastric feedings may be started for a subgroup of patients. In patients who are intolerant to gastric feeding or are deemed to be at high risk of aspiration, enteral feeding into the small intestine is initiated via a transpyloric nasoenteric or surgically placed feeding tube. Small-volume continuous enteral feeding (trophic feeding) to prevent gut mucosal atrophy has become a standard treatment of critically ill patients. Animal studies demonstrate a trophic effect of low- volume enteral feeding on the intestinal epithelial bor-der.33 Trophic feedings do not provide significant nutrition value (usually <25% of daily nutrition needs) but are thought to have some positive GI or systemic benefit.34 Compared with enteral feeding abstinence, trophic feed-ings maintain intestinal microvillus height and structure; stimulate intestinal secretion of brush border enzymes, endogenous peptides, and secretory immunoglobulin A and bile salts; preserve epithelial cell tight junctions; increase intestinal motility; and promote intestinal blood flow.35-37 These local effects reduce systemic inflamma-tion by helping prevent translocation of bacteria or bacte-rial products across the intestinal epithelial barrier and into the circulation.38 In very low birth weight infants, minimal EN resulted in improved intestinal function and fewer septic complications, ventilator days, and hospital length of stay compared with PN without enteral feeding.39,40 Despite advocating for early enteral feedings, the Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines admit that the scarcity of data available regarding the optimal volume of early enteral feedings renders making any recommenda-tion impossible.8 Although the exact volume required to confer these effects in adult humans is unknown, obser-vational studies in mechanically ventilated patients (many of whom did not have acute respiratory distress syn-drome) have found that moderate volumes of feedings are associated with improved clinical outcomes, including reduced risk of bloodstream infection41 and mortality.42 Other similarly designed studies have shown that low-volume feedings are associated with improved outcomes.43 Based on these reports, we make every attempt to provide minimal enteral nutrients in patients who are unable to tolerate full-volume feeding. For patients receiving con-tinuous feedings, the feeding rate may be advanced by 1-5 mL/h (for infants) or 5-20 mL/h (for children older than 1 year of age) every 4 hours. In cases where EN is inter-rupted, the previously established feeding method and schedule should be resumed if possible.

In summary, we believe that critically ill children with a functioning GI tract benefit from early administration of at least some EN, within 24-48 hours after admission to the PICU. A protocolized approach to increasing feed-ings as tolerated will allow goal EN to be reached. The next section describes some considerations for selecting the site of delivery of enteral nutrients.

Route of Enteral Feeding: Gastric vs Postpyloric

In critically ill children on EN, there are insufficient data to make recommendations regarding the optimal route of enteral feeding (gastric vs postpyloric). In gen-eral, gastric feedings are preferred because of ease of administration and reduced costs and expertise required in comparison to transpyloric feedings. In patients with poor gastric emptying or in cases where a trial of gastric feeding has failed, transpyloric or postpyloric (small bowel) feeding may be used to decrease the risk of aspi-ration and to improve EN tolerance.44 However, there is no evidence of benefit for routine use of small bowel feeding in all patients admitted to the PICU. In a study examining the role of small bowel feeding in 74 critically ill children, randomized to received either gastric or post-pyloric feedings, there was no significant difference in the incidence of microaspiration, tube displacement, and feeding intolerance between the 2 groups.45 The study was not powered to detect differences in mortality. Of note, enteral feedings were interrupted in a large number of subjects in this study. Although caloric goals were only met in a small percentage of the population studied, the proportion of subjects who achieved their daily caloric goal was higher in the small bowel group compared with the gastric fed group. The evidence for benefits of postpyloric feeding remains equivocal even in the adult critical care population.46 It may be prudent to consider postpyloric feedings in selected patients who do not tolerate gastric feeding or those who are at a high risk of aspiration. Patients with depressed mental status, absent or depressed gag reflexes, severe respiratory dis-tress, recurrent emesis, gastroesophageal reflux, history of aspiration, and delayed gastric emptying are deemed at high risk of aspiration.47 The available expertise and resources in individual PICUs may limit the application of postpyloric feeding. Surgical placement of gastros-tomy or jejunostomy tube allows long-term EN in selected patients during intensive care and after dis-charge from the ICU. The advent of percutaneously placed gastric and jejunal tubes has minimized cost, time, and morbidity.48 Stoma site infection, obstruction, and tube dislodgement are common complications and must be identified and managed early. Tube tip malposi-tion is frequently encountered with any of these devices either at placement or during the course of use.49,50 Bedside screening methods for achieving correct tip position range from auscultation during air insufflation to ultrasound-guided tip localization. However, feedings should be held when malposition of tip is suspected, and when in doubt, radiographic confirmation of correct tip position must be obtained before recommencing feedings.

To optimize benefits and minimize risks with EN delivery, standard guidelines must include criteria to help




clinicians identify patients who would benefit from small bowel feeding. Postpyloric or transpyloric tube feedings may be used in patients who are at risk of aspiration or who have failed a trial of gastric feeding. A majority of children requiring transpyloric feeding include those with depressed cough or gag reflexes, delayed gastric emptying, intolerance to gastric feeding, and significant gastro-esophageal reflux. Children with active upper GI bleed-ing, risk of GI ischemia, intestinal obstruction, coagulopathy, recent allogenic bone marrow transplant, or stem cell transplant are usually not candidates for transpyloric feeding.

Placement of transpyloric tubes requires expertise and takes longer than placement of intragastric tubes. Placement of transpyloric tubes may not be feasible at all centers, and the success of the placement relies on the technique used, the experience and expertise of the operator, and backup support from radiologists in cases where bedside placement has not been successful. Transpyloric feeding tubes must be placed by healthcare providers who have received adequate training and dem-onstrated competence in the performance of this proce-dure. A variety of procedural techniques for transpyloric feeding tube placement have been described, including the use of modified tubes; air insufflation; videoscopic, echocardiographic, or external magnet assistance; and pH-assisted and spontaneous passage with or without promotility agents.50-57 No single method has been shown to be superior. Although individual centers have reported high success rates, the overall incidence of complications such as pneumothorax and malpositioned enteral tubes is not negligible.45,49,53-55,58 Strict aseptic precautions must be observed during the procedure. After aspiration of 10 mL of air, failure to aspirate more than 2 mL of air predicts transpyloric placement with reasonable consistency.59 Tube tip confirmation needs to be documented radio-graphically. Following successful placement, documenta-tion and monitoring of tube marking at the nares with attention to securing the catheter could prevent unin-tended tube displacements. Overall, transpyloric feeding is well tolerated in critically ill children and may allow early goal caloric intake by improving tolerance in care-fully selected patients.45 The benefit of transpyloric enteral feeding compared with PN, in terms of decreased complications and costs, must be further examined.60

Sustaining EN in the PICU

Interruptions to EN

After EN is successfully established during critical illness, enteral feedings are often held or discontinued for

varying periods of time for diagnostic or therapeutic interventions.5,61 The goal of fasting prior to elective endotracheal intubation, general anesthesia, procedural sedation, extubation, and other such interventions is to lower the corresponding risk of aspiration. Although EN is often interrupted in the intensive care setting because of conflicts with necessary procedures and the complexity of care, many interruptions might be avoidable. In an audit of 117 patients admitted to our PICU over a period of 1 month, we examined factors responsible for EN deprivation. Following early institution, EN was inter-rupted in nearly one–third of the patients at an average of 3.7 ± 3.1 times per patient (range, 1-13), for a total of 88 episodes accounting for 1483 hours of EN during the study period. Table 1 illustrates some of the common fac-tors associated with EN interruptions in critically ill patients. The use of PN alone or as a supplement for nutrient provision in such cases may expose the patient to increased costs and the risks associated with PN admin-istration. The achievement of caloric and volume goals using EN remains challenging in the ICU. Prospective cohort studies and retrospective chart reviews have reported the inability to achieve daily caloric goal in criti-cally ill children.5,62 The most common reasons for subop-timal enteral nutrient delivery in these studies are fluid restriction, interruptions to EN for procedures, and EN intolerance attributable to hemodynamic instability. The percentage of estimated energy expenditure actually administered to these subjects was remarkably low. In multiple studies examining the actual nutrient intake, caloric goals were not met in a significant proportion of children in the PICU. Nutrition goals were reportedly achieved in 25%-50% of these children.5,63 Consistently underachieved EN goals are thought to be one of the reasons for the absence of beneficial effect in multiple

Table 1. Common Factors Impeding Optimal Enteral Nutrition (EN) Intake

in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Reason for EN interruption

Intolerance to enteral feeding High gastric residuals/abdominal girth/discomfort Emesis/diarrheaFeeding tube issues Failure to place tube or tube becomes displaced Blocked feeding tubePreprocedural fasting (longer than recommended time) Bedside procedures Extubation/intubation Operating room procedures Procedures in the radiology suite




studies and meta-analysis of the efficacy of immunonutri-tion in preventing infection.64

Enteral Feeding Intolerance

Intolerance to enteral feedings is a major factor responsi-ble for limiting enteral nutrient intake, and may increase reliance on PN to achieve nutrition intake goals. In the absence of a uniform definition or objective criteria for enteral feeding intolerance, the monitoring of enteral feeding tolerance and management of perceived intoler-ance are widely variable among PICUs. There is no evi-dence of superiority of continuous gastric tube feeding over intermittent bolus gastric feeding every 2 hours in terms of tolerance of enteral feedings. The numbers of daily stools, diarrheal episodes, and vomiting incidences were similar between the 2 groups of children randomized to these methods of gastric feeding.65 There is not enough evidence to recommend the routine use of prokinetic medications or motility agents (for EN intolerance or to facilitate enteral access device placement) in critically ill children. The use of prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics in the critically ill child has been sporadic, and there have been some concerns about complications with their use during inflammatory states.66,67 Some of the commonly reported criteria for perceived intolerance to enteral feed-ing are high gastric residual volumes (GRVs), abdominal distension or discomfort, diarrhea, and vomiting.

GRV

The routine measurement of GRVs has been used as a surrogate for gastric emptying in patients receiving enteral feedings.68 GRV is thought to be correlated with the risk of aspiration in critically ill children.69 However, the lower limit of GRV that protects from risk of aspiration is not known, and the routine reliance of this measurement may result in unnecessary lapses in enteral feeding. Computer modeling has shown that when some gastric emptying is preserved, GRVs plateau at <900 mL in critically ill adults.70 Furthermore, studies have shown poor correla-tion of GRV with clinical and radiographic examination, and have questioned the precision of measured GRV in predicting gastric emptying.71 Thus, the value of GRV monitoring in enterally fed critically ill children is doubt-ful, and GRV may pose a barrier to EN provision. The routine use of GRV measurement as a guide to enteral feeding or as a marker of aspiration risk is questionable.21,72 However, the application of GRV measurements to enteral feeding protocols is prevalent in ICUs.

Decisions to interrupt EN must not be based solely on arbitrary GRV values but must be individually assessed after accounting for other signs of EN intolerance such as abdominal distension, discomfort, vomiting, and diarrhea. GRV must not be routinely measured, although gastric decompression may be performed through a separate

gastric port if available in patients on continuous transpy-loric feedings. In patients receiving intermittent bolus feedings, GRV measurement may be performed prior to each feeding. Although not based on evidence, one sug-gested method for using GRV is as follows: GRV of 5 mL/kg or 150 mL or more than half the previous feeding vol-ume has been deemed as significant.73 If GRV is elevated, repeat measurement may be obtained after 2 hours with-out increasing the rate or volume of enteral feeding. If 2 consecutive measurements are elevated, EN is held and GRV monitored every 4 hours until it decreases. At this time, feedings may be restarted at 50% of the previously tolerated rate and volume and advanced as tolerated. Ultimately, the utility of GRV as a measure of feeding intolerance in critically ill children is unclear, and man-agement decisions will need to be based on consensus and evidence from well-designed studies in the future.

Upper GI dysmotility in critically ill patients, espe-cially during mechanical ventilatory support, is of signifi-cant concern in both the fasted and fed state.74,75 Abnormalities in fundal relaxation, antral motility, and pyloric activity are seen even with small-volume nutrient delivery into the small intestine, resulting in delayed gas-tric emptying.76 The etiology of the upper GI motor dys-function in the critically ill patient is likely to be multifactorial. and potential risk factors include inflam-mation, hypoperfusion, electrolyte abnormalities, and drugs.77 In the absence of a reliable diagnostic test, many centers have used pharmacologic adjuncts such as eryth-romycin, cisapride, metoclopramide, and opioid antago-nists as prokinetic agents to assist feeding tolerance.8 However, the use of these agents either individually or in combination has been moderated by side effects or lack of adequate assessment in the critically ill population. We do not routinely use promotility drugs in the PICU in patients with high GRV, delayed gastric emptying, or emesis. However, promotility drugs may be used in selected patients with careful monitoring for side effects. The optimal dose of prokinetic drugs in the pediatric age group remains unclear.

In patients with persistent feeding intolerance, EN is discontinued, provided in the form of trophic feeding, or combined with PN to meet the caloric goal. Newer meth-ods aimed at measuring gastric emptying and hence enteral feeding tolerance in critically ill children will illu-minate this area in the future.78-80 A uniform definition of EN intolerance is desirable with institutional practice guidelines that address each step along the guideline sys-tematically and in great detail and clarity. Constipation and diarrhea are common manifestations of enteral feed-ing intolerance in critically ill children. High osmolarity of the enteral formula, enteropathy attributable to pro-longed fasting during critical illness, infectious colitis, high sorbitol content medications, and withdrawal from opiates may be associated with debilitating diarrhea (usually 3 or more watery stools per day, or increased




frequency and volume of stool) in PICU patients.81 Persistent diarrhea may necessitate withholding or reduc-tion of feedings or modification of formulations. Constipation is a significant problem in PICU patients, especially in patients with high opioid requirements or certain postoperative states associated with ileus.62 Opioids activate opioid receptors in the GI tract, decreas-ing intestinal transit time and increasing water absorption from the intestinal lumen, with the overall effect being dryer and harder stools. Commonly used agents for con-stipation in the PICU include suppositories, stool soften-ers, laxatives, and enemas. An aggressive guideline for evaluation and intervention, with practical stepwise man-agement options, may curtail the incidence of severe constipation and EN discontinuation in critically ill patients.21 In non-neutropenic children older than 1 month who have been on enteral feedings for over 48 hours without stool, a stepwise approach with escalating levels of intervention to address constipation may be ben-eficial. Diet modification where possible with prune juice may be followed by a series of adjuncts such as glycerin suppository, stool softeners, laxatives, and enema to facil-itate regular and soft stools. An independent constipation guideline incorporated into the EN protocol is desirable.

Complications of EN

Malpositioned Feeding Tubes

Bedside placement of gastric and transpyloric tubes via the nasal route requires expertise and may be associated with unintended consequences. Although gastric tube place-ment is rapid and safe, transpyloric feeding tube placement may take additional time. Patient discomfort should be assessed during feeding tube placement and appropriate comfort measures used. Malpositioned tube tips have been reported and may be associated with perforation of the pharynx, esophagus, stomach, or intestine; tracheobron-chial malposition may result in pneumothorax.82,83 These complications may occur at the time of feeding tube inser-tion or as a result of subsequent migration. In addition, the likelihood of displacement of tube tip after successful placement exposes patients to risk of aspiration. Proper maintenance of feeding tube requires teaching, proto-colized management, and approach to problems and sur-veillance for complications.

Aspiration Pneumonia

Enteral feeding is favored in critically ill patients because of its perceived physiological benefits, ease, safety, and potential reduction of infectious morbidity. However, not all patients are eligible for safe use of the GI tract. The incidence of gastric dysmotility or ileus in some critically

ill patients attributable to opiate use, GI surgery, or dis-ease may result in intolerance to enteral feeding. Gastric distension, high residuals, and pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents are likely risks in these patients being fed into the stomach. There does not seem to be a significant difference in the incidence of these outcomes between bolus intermittent or continuous gastric feeding.65 Although the role of transpyloric feeding in such cases aimed at improving tolerance, increasing intake, and decreasing aspiration risk is attractive, no convincing benefit has been shown in adult or pediatric trials.46,47 The role of enteral feeding in the etiology of aspiration pneumonia, especially in mechanically ventilated patients, has been explored with conflicting results.22,84 The aspira-tion of gastric contents and the translocation of organ-isms colonized along the GI tract to the airways may contribute to the development of nosocomial pneumonia. The use of early EN was shown to increase the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill adults.84 However, this result has not been replicated in other studies. Overall, lack of a gold standard for detecting small-volume aspiration has hindered the ability to study the incidence and risk of aspiration pneumonia in enter-ally fed patients. Glucose content of tracheal secretions, lipid-laden macrophages in bronchial lavage fluid, use of enteral dye, and residual volumes are some of the diag-nostic modalities used to detect the incidence of aspira-tion with very poor sensitivity.72,85,86 Furthermore, there have been concerns regarding the safety of enteral blue dye.47,87,88 Following a series of case reports regarding the association between blue dye and serious complications including death, the FDA issued an advisory in 2003 and recommended immediate suspension of this and other related dyes as food additives to diagnose aspiration.87,89 A safe and efficacious diagnostic test for early detection of microaspiration in PICU patients is urgently required and must remain a focus for future research. Until then, the relationship between aggressive early EN and aspira-tion and ventilator-associated pneumonia will remain unclear.

Other GI side effects of enteral feeding, such as abdominal distension, or complications such as diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolitis, and GI hemorrhage, are infre-quent but require vigilance for early detection.22,90,91

Practice Guideline (Algorithm) for Enteral Feeding

Clinical practice guidelines, developed by multidisci-plinary expert consensus and evidence, help improve nutrition support practices in the ICU. The Canadian Clinical Practice Guidelines (www.criticalcarenutrition.com) provide a model for evidence-based, consensus-derived generation of practical recommendations, dissemination




of recommendations, and the systematic evaluation of their impact on patient outcomes. Adherence to these guidelines has been shown to increase EN intake and decrease hospital length of stay, and perhaps carries a trend toward decreased mortality.8,92-94 In the absence of sound clinical trials in the PICU population, the develop-ment of evidence-based guidelines is challenging. Although more clinical research is urgently needed to address the multitude of issues related to nutrition sup-port in the PICU, institutionally developed practice guide-lines may help to address the variability in practice. Guidelines for EN and PN for the critically ill child have recently been revised by the Guidelines Committee and Board of Directors of the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.).6

In a retrospective chart review, nutrition data were examined in PICU patients before and after institution of an aggressive enteral feeding protocol. The feeding proto-col was developed by a multidisciplinary group which pro-vided age-based recommendations for initiating EN, selecting formula, estimating energy needs, advancing EN, and monitoring and managing enteral feeding intolerance. In addition, a constipation management regimen was incorporated in the protocol. The authors reported early institution of EN, shortened time to reaching nutrition goal, and decreased interruptions to established EN in the group after implementation of the protocol. Figure 1 out-lines a suggested methodological approach to initiating and advancing EN in children admitted to the PICU. Such guidelines may be developed at the institutional level after reviewing local practices and identifying gaps that must be addressed. The guideline provides a stepwise approach to promoting EN and includes recommendations for deter-mining route of feeding, assessing aspiration risk, monitor-ing GRV, intervening in cases with persistently high GRV, standardizing prescription of EN, and suggesting fasting times prior to common PICU procedures.

Administration of nutrients in the GI tract requires careful screening for eligibility, expertise in placement of transpyloric tubes, a protocolized approach to managing intolerance to enteral feedings, and monitoring for compli-cations. A multidisciplinary approach to nutrition support, which includes a dedicated nutrition support team and ongoing education of healthcare workers, can improve the success of EN, decrease reliance on PN, and poten-tially affect patient outcomes.19 The impact of dedicated nutrition support personnel may be clouded by many other factors that might impede the provision of optimal nutrients in the PICU.95 Many PICUs have developed local nutrition support teams to assist with nutrient provi-sion in critically ill patients.96 Their role in early nutrition assessment, careful estimation or measurement of energy requirements, and monitoring of nutrient intake is crucial to achieving optimal nutrition goals. A dedicated nutrition professional must be a part of the pediatric critical team

making key contributions in day-to-day management and collaborating in quality improvement and research projects related to nutrition support in the PICU.

EN Practice Bundle

Care bundles have been implemented in the critical care environment to group together high-impact evidence-based practice interventions aimed at improving patient outcomes. We recently implemented a Critical Care Enteral Nutrition Practice Bundle developed by a multi-disciplinary group at our center (Table 2). The basic ele-ments of the bundle included nutrition assessment at admission, identification of individual caloric goal, early initiation of EN, elevation of head of bed, and use of an institutional guideline to maintain optimal EN. The EN practice bundle was introduced as part of a multifaceted intervention optimizing sedation practice and reducing central line–associated infections in the PICU. Using a checklist, the PICU team incorporates the elements of the EN bundle into the daily care plan reviewed at patient rounds. We are currently in the process of examining the effects of this nutrition practice bundle.

Conclusions

EN should be initiated early in hospitalized children with established peristalsis. Postpyloric EN may be used in children with a high risk of aspiration or when gastric feeding either is contraindicated or has failed. Enterally administered feedings can meet nutrition requirements in critically ill children with functional GI systems and have the advantages of cost, manageability, safety, and preser-vation of GI function. Early introduction of enteral feed-ings in critically ill patients helps to achieve positive protein and energy balance and improves nitrogen bal-ance during the acute state of illness. Despite the per-ceived benefits of EN, current practice in ICUs is heterogeneous and a significant proportion of eligible patients do not receive optimal EN.97 Administration of optimal EN support will require a multidisciplinary effort at the bedside, with the help of a dedicated nutrition sup-port team, prudent consensus-based guidelines, and implementation of evidence-based practice bundles. The

Table 2. Elements of a Critical Care Enteral Nutrition (EN) Practice Bundle

Nutrition assessment on admissionCaloric goal (measured resting energy expenditure or estimate)Early EN (within 24 hours of admission)Head-of-bed elevation (≥30°)Daily checklist for EN status/protocolized EN advancement




safe provision of EN will require ongoing education and vigilance among healthcare workers. Future research aimed at identifying gaps in bedside nutrition support practice may allow implementation of novel measures to ensure sustained EN in the PICU. The potential benefit of enteral immunonutrients during pediatric critical ill-ness is promising. The efficacy and safety profile of immunonutrients in the critically ill child requires sys-tematic examination.

Acknowledgment

I am grateful for the thoughtful review of this manu-script by Christopher P. Duggan, MD, MPH and Susan Hamilton, RN, MS.

References

Alexander E, Susla GM, Burstein AH, Brown DT, Ognibene FP. 1. Retrospective evaluation of commonly used equations to predict energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24:1659-1667.Chwals WJ, Bistrian BR. Predicted energy expenditure in critically 2. ill children: problems associated with increased variability. Crit Care Med. 2000;28:2655-2656.Mehta NM, Bechard LJ, Leavitt K, Duggan C. Severe weight loss 3. and hypermetabolic paroxysmal dysautonomia following hypoxic ischemic brain injury: the role of indirect calorimetry in the inten-sive care unit. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2008;32:281-284.Mehta NM, Bechard LJ, Leavitt K, Duggan C. Cumulative energy 4. imbalance in the pediatric intensive care unit: role of targeted indirect calorimetry. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2009;33(3). doi:10.1177/0148607108325249.Rogers EJ, Gilbertson HR, Heine RG, Henning R. Barriers to ade-5. quate nutrition in critically ill children. Nutrition. 2003;19:865-868.A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors and the Clinical Guidelines Task 6. Force. Guidelines for the use of parenteral and enteral nutrition in adult and pediatric patients [published correction appears in JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002; 26:144]. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26(Suppl 1):1SA-138SA. Heyland DK, MacDonald S, Keefe L, Drover JW. Total parenteral 7. nutrition in the critically ill patient: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 1998;280:2013-2019.Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Drover JW, Gramlich L, Dodek P. 8. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adult patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2003;27:355-373.Simpson F, Doig GS. Parenteral vs. enteral nutrition in the criti-9. cally ill patient: a meta-analysis of trials using the intention to treat principle. Intensive Care Med. 2005;31:12-23.Moore FA, Feliciano DV, Andrassy RJ, et al. Early enteral feeding, 10. compared with parenteral, reduces postoperative septic compli cations: the results of a meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 1992;216:172-183.Sanderson IR, Croft NM. The anti-inflammatory effects of 11. enteral nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29(4 suppl): S134-S140.Hadfield RJ, Sinclair DG, Houldsworth PE, Evans TW. Effects of 12. enteral and parenteral nutrition on gut mucosal permeability in the critically ill. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152:1545-1548.

Heyland DK, Novak F. Immunonutrition in the critically ill patient: 13. more harm than good? JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2001;25 (2 suppl):S51-S55; discussion S55-S56.Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Immunonutrition in critically ill patients: a 14. systematic review and analysis of the literature. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:1980-1990.Briassoulis G, Filippou O, Hatzi E, Papassotiriou I, Hatzis T. Early 15. enteral administration of immunonutrition in critically ill children: results of a blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. Nutrition. 2005;21:799-807.Briassoulis G, Zavras N, Hatzis T. Malnutrition, nutritional indi-16. ces, and early enteral feeding in critically ill children. Nutrition. 2001;17:548-557.Briassoulis GC, Zavras NJ, Hatzis MT. Effectiveness and safety of 17. a protocol for promotion of early intragastric feeding in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2001;2:113-121.Chellis MJ, Sanders SV, Webster H, Dean JM, Jackson D. Early 18. enteral feeding in the pediatric intensive care unit. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1996;20:71-73.de Oliveira Iglesias SB, Leite HP, Santana e Meneses JF, de 19. Carvalho WB. Enteral nutrition in critically ill children: are pre-scription and delivery according to their energy requirements? Nutr Clin Pract. 2007;22:233-239.Gurgueira GL, Leite HP, Taddei JA, de Carvalho WB. Outcomes 20. in a pediatric intensive care unit before and after the implementa-tion of a nutrition support team. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2005;29:176-185.Petrillo-Albarano T, Pettignano R, Asfaw M, Easley K. Use of a 21. feeding protocol to improve nutritional support through early, aggressive, enteral nutrition in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2006;7:340-344.Sanchez C, Lopez-Herce J, Carrillo A, Mencia S, Vigil D. Early 22. transpyloric enteral nutrition in critically ill children. Nutrition. 2007;23:16-22.Strodtbeck F. The role of early enteral nutrition in protecting pre-23. mature infants from sepsis. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2003;15:79-87.Briassoulis G, Tsorva A, Zavras N, Hatzis T. Influence of an aggres-24. sive early enteral nutrition protocol on nitrogen balance in criti-cally ill children. J Nutr Biochem. 2002;13:560.Gottschlich MM, Jenkins ME, Mayes T, Khoury J, Kagan RJ, 25. Warden GD. The 2002 Clinical Research Award. An evaluation of the safety of early vs delayed enteral support and effects on clini-cal, nutritional, and endocrine outcomes after severe burns. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2002;23:401-415.Raff T, Hartmann B, Germann G. Early intragastric feeding of seri-26. ously burned and long-term ventilated patients: a review of 55 patients. Burns. 1997;23:19-25.Kompan L, Kremzar B, Gadzijev E, Prosek M. Effects of early 27. enteral nutrition on intestinal permeability and the development of multiple organ failure after multiple injury. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25:157-161.Munshi IA, Steingrub JS, Wolpert L. Small bowel necrosis associ-28. ated with early postoperative jejunal tube feeding in a trauma patient. J Trauma. 2000;49:163-165.King W, Petrillo T, Pettignano R. Enteral nutrition and cardiovas-29. cular medications in the pediatric intensive care unit. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2004;28:334-338.Krejci V, Hiltebrand LB, Jakob SM, Takala J, Sigurdsson GH. 30. Vasopressin in septic shock: effects on pancreatic, renal, and hepatic blood flow. Crit Care. 2007;11:R129.Krejci V, Hiltebrand LB, Sigurdsson GH. Effects of epinephrine, 31. norepinephrine, and phenylephrine on microcirculatory blood flow in the gastrointestinal tract in sepsis. Crit Care Med. 2006;34: 1456-1463.




Duggan C, Rizzo C, Cooper A, et al. Effectiveness of a clinical 32. practice guideline for parenteral nutrition: a 5-year follow-up study in a pediatric teaching hospital. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26:377-381.Burrin DG, Stoll B, Jiang R, et al. Minimal enteral nutrient 33. requirements for intestinal growth in neonatal piglets: how much is enough? Am J Clin Nutr. 2000;71:1603-1610.Sondheimer JM. A critical perspective on trophic feeding. 34. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2004;38:237-238.Buchman AL, Moukarzel AA, Bhuta S, et al. Parenteral nutrition 35. is associated with intestinal morphologic and functional changes in humans. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1995;19:453-460.Groos S, Hunefeld G, Luciano L. Parenteral versus enteral nutri-36. tion: morphological changes in human adult intestinal mucosa. J Submicrosc Cytol Pathol. 1996;28:61-74.Hernandez G, Velasco N, Wainstein C, et al. Gut mucosal atrophy 37. after a short enteral fasting period in critically ill patients. J Crit Care. 1999;14:73-77.MacFie J, Reddy BS, Gatt M, Jain PK, Sowdi R, Mitchell CJ. 38. Bacterial translocation studied in 927 patients over 13 years. Br J Surg. 2006;93:87-93.McClure RJ, Newell SJ. Randomised controlled study of clinical 39. outcome following trophic feeding. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2000;82:F29-F33.McClure RJ, Newell SJ. Randomized controlled study of digestive 40. enzyme activity following trophic feeding. Acta Paediatr. 2002;91:292-296.Rubinson L, Diette GB, Song X, Brower RG, Krishnan JA. Low 41. caloric intake is associated with nosocomial bloodstream infections in patients in the medical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:350-357.Arabi Y, Haddad S, Sakkijha M, Al Shimemeri A. The impact of 42. implementing an enteral tube feeding protocol on caloric and pro-tein delivery in intensive care unit patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 2004;19:523-530.Dickerson RN, Boschert KJ, Kudsk KA, Brown RO. Hypocaloric 43. enteral tube feeding in critically ill obese patients. Nutrition. 2002;18:241-246.Panadero E, Lopez-Herce J, Caro L, et al. Transpyloric enteral 44. feeding in critically ill children. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1998;26:43-48.Meert KL, Daphtary KM, Metheny NA. Gastric vs small-bowel 45. feeding in critically ill children receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial. Chest. 2004;126:872-878.Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Gastric versus post-pyloric feeding: a sys-46. tematic review. Crit Care. 2003;7:R46-R51.McClave SA, DeMeo MT, DeLegge MH, et al. North American 47. Summit on Aspiration in the Critically Ill Patient: consensus state-ment. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26(6 suppl):S80-S85.Hull MA, Rawlings J, Murray FE, et al. Audit of outcome of long-48. term enteral nutrition by percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy. Lancet. 1993;341:869-872.Ellett ML, Maahs J, Forsee S. Prevalence of feeding tube place-49. ment errors & associated risk factors in children. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 1998;23:234-239.Powers J, Chance R, Bortenschlager L, et al. Bedside placement of 50. small-bowel feeding tubes in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Nurse. 2003;23:16-24.Dimand RJ, Veereman-Wauters G, Braner DA. Bedside placement 51. of pH-guided transpyloric small bowel feeding tubes in critically ill infants and small children. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1997;21:112-114.Krafte-Jacobs B, Persinger M, Carver J, Moore L, Brilli R. Rapid 52. placement of transpyloric feeding tubes: a comparison of pH-as-sisted and standard insertion techniques in children. Pediatrics. 1996;98:242-248.

Boivin M, Levy H, Hayes J. A multicenter, prospective study of the 53. placement of transpyloric feeding tubes with assistance of a mag-netic device. The Magnet-Guided Enteral Feeding Tube Study Group. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2000;24:304-307.Gabriel SA, Ackermann RJ. Placement of nasoenteral feeding 54. tubes using external magnetic guidance. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2004;28:119-122.Levy H, Hayes J, Boivin M, Tomba T. Transpyloric feeding tube 55. placement in critically ill patients using electromyogram and eryth-romycin infusion. Chest. 2004;125:587-591.Da Silva PS, Paulo CS, de Oliveira Iglesias SB, de Carvalho WB, 56. Santana e Meneses F. Bedside transpyloric tube placement in the pediatric intensive care unit: a modified insufflation air technique. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:943-946.Stone SJ, Pickett JD, Jesurum JT. Bedside placement of postpyloric 57. feeding tubes. AACN Clin Issues. 2000;11:517-530.Wendell GD, Lenchner GS, Promisloff RA. Pneumothorax compli-58. cating small-bore feeding tube placement. Arch Intern Med. 1991;151:599-602.Harrison AM, Clay B, Grant MJ, et al. Nonradiographic assess-59. ment of enteral feeding tube position. Crit Care Med. 1997;25: 2055-2059.de Lucas C, Moreno M, Lopez-Herce J, Ruiz F, Perez-Palencia M, 60. Carrillo A. Transpyloric enteral nutrition reduces the complication rate and cost in the critically ill child. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2000;30:175-180.Adams GF, Guest DP, Ciraulo DL, Lewis PL, Hill RC, Barker DE. 61. Maximizing tolerance of enteral nutrition in severely injured trauma patients: a comparison of enteral feedings by means of percutane-ous endoscopic gastrostomy versus percutaneous endoscopic gas-trojejunostomy. J Trauma. 2000;48:459-464; discussion 464-465.Taylor RM, Preedy VR, Baker AJ, Grimble G. Nutritional support 62. in critically ill children. Clin Nutr. 2003;22:365-369.de Groof F, Joosten KF, Janssen JA, et al. Acute stress response in 63. children with meningococcal sepsis: important differences in the growth hormone/insulin-like growth factor I axis between non survivors and survivors. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87:3118-3124.Atkinson S, Sieffert E, Bihari D. A prospective, randomized, dou-64. ble-blind, controlled clinical trial of enteral immunonutrition in the critically ill. Guy’s Hospital Intensive Care Group. Crit Care Med. 1998;26:1164-1172.Horn D, Chaboyer W. Gastric feeding in critically ill children: a 65. randomized controlled trial. Am J Crit Care. 2003;12:461-468.De Groote MA, Frank DN, Dowell E, Glode MP, Pace NR. 66. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG bacteremia associated with probiotic use in a child with short gut syndrome. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2005;24:278-280.Kunz AN, Noel JM, Fairchok MP. Two cases of Lactobacillus bac-67. teremia during probiotic treatment of short gut syndrome. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2004;38:457-458.McClave SA, Snider HL. Clinical use of gastric residual volumes 68. as a monitor for patients on enteral tube feeding. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26(6 suppl):S43-S48; discussion S49-S50.McClave SA, Dryden GW. Critical care nutrition: reducing the risk 69. of aspiration. Semin Gastrointest Dis. 2003;14:2-10.Lin HC, Van Citters GW. Stopping enteral feeding for arbitrary 70. gastric residual volume may not be physiologically sound: results of a computer simulation model. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1997;21:286-289.Tamion F, Hamelin K, Duflo A, Girault C, Richard JC, Bonmarchand 71. G. Gastric emptying in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: effect of neuromuscular blocking agent. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1717-1722.McClave SA, Lukan JK, Stefater JA, et al. Poor validity of residual 72. volumes as a marker for risk of aspiration in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:324-330.




A.S.P.E.N. Board of Directors. Standards for hospitalized pediatric 73. patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 1996;11:217-228.Ritz MA, Fraser R, Edwards N, et al. Delayed gastric emptying in 74. ventilated critically ill patients: measurement by 13 C-octanoic acid breath test. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1744-1749.Montejo JC. Enteral nutrition-related gastrointestinal complica-75. tions in critically ill patients: a multicenter study. The Nutritional and Metabolic Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Coronary Units. Crit Care Med. 1999;27: 1447-1453.Chapman M, Fraser R, Vozzo R, et al. Antro-pyloro-duodenal 76. motor responses to gastric and duodenal nutrient in critically ill patients. Gut. 2005;54:1384-1390.Deane A, Chapman MJ, Fraser RJ, Bryant LK, Burgstad C, Nguyen 77. NQ. Mechanisms underlying feed intolerance in the critically ill: implications for treatment. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13: 3909-3917.Chang WK, McClave SA, Hsieh CB, Chao YC. Gastric residual 78. volume (GRV) and gastric contents measurement by refractometry. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2007;31:63-68.Goldhill DR, Toner CC, Tarling MM, Baxter K, Withington PS, 79. Whelpton R. Double-blind, randomized study of the effect of cis-apride on gastric emptying in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:447-451.Tarling MM, Toner CC, Withington PS, Baxter MK, Whelpton R, 80. Goldhill DR. A model of gastric emptying using paracetamol absorption in intensive care patients. Intensive Care Med. 1997;23: 256-260.King CK, Glass R, Bresee JS, Duggan C; Centers for Disease 81. Control and Prevention. Managing acute gastroenteritis among children: oral rehydration, maintenance, and nutritional therapy. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2003;52:1-16.Woodall BH, Winfield DF, Bisset GS III. Inadvertent tracheobron-82. chial placement of feeding tubes. Radiology. 1987;165:727-729.Kaufman JP, Hughes WB, Kerstein MD. Pneumothorax after 83. nasoenteral feeding tube placement. Am Surg. 2001;67:772-773.Ibrahim EH, Mehringer L, Prentice D, et al. Early versus late 84. enteral feeding of mechanically ventilated patients: results of a clinical trial. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26:174-181.Maloney JP, Ryan TA. Detection of aspiration in enterally fed patients: 85. a requiem for bedside monitors of aspiration. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2002;26(6 suppl):S34-S41; discussion S41-S42.

Metheny NA, Dahms TE, Stewart BJ, et al. Efficacy of dye-stained 86. enteral formula in detecting pulmonary aspiration. Chest. 2002; 122:276-281.Maloney JP, Halbower AC, Fouty BF, et al. Systemic absorption 87. of food dye in patients with sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2000;343: 1047-1048.Maloney JP, Ryan TA, Brasel KJ, et al. Food dye use in enteral 88. feedings: a review and a call for a moratorium. Nutr Clin Pract. 2002;17:169-181.Lucarelli MR, Shirk MB, Julian MW, Crouser ED. Toxicity of food 89. drug and cosmetic blue no. 1 dye in critically ill patients. Chest. 2004;125:793-795.Heyland D, Cook DJ, Winder B, Brylowski L, Van deMark H, 90. Guyatt G. Enteral nutrition in the critically ill patient: a prospec-tive survey. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:1055-1060.Montejo JC, Grau T, Acosta J, et al. Multicenter, prospective, ran-91. domized, single-blind study comparing the efficacy and gastroin-testinal complications of early jejunal feeding with early gastric feeding in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:796-800.Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Day A, Jain M, Drover J. Validation of the 92. Canadian clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adult patients: results of a pro-spective observational study. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2260-2266.Jain MK, Heyland D, Dhaliwal R, et al. Dissemination of the Canadian 93. clinical practice guidelines for nutrition support: results of a cluster randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2362-2369.Martin CM, Doig GS, Heyland DK, Morrison T, Sibbald WJ; 94. Southwestern Ontario Critical Research Network. Multicentre, cluster-randomized clinical trial of algorithms for critical-care enteral and parenteral therapy (ACCEPT). CMAJ. 2004;170:197-204.Lambe C, Hubert P, Jouvet P, Cosnes J, Colomb V. A nutritional 95. support team in the pediatric intensive care unit: changes and fac-tors impeding appropriate nutrition. Clin Nutr. 2007;26:355-363.van der Kuip M, Oosterveld MJ, van Bokhorst-de van der Schueren 96. MA, de Meer K, Lafeber HN, Gemke RJ. Nutritional support in 111 pediatric intensive care units: a European survey. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1807-1813.Heyland DK, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Enteral nutrition in the criti-97. cally ill patient: a critical review of the evidence. Intensive Care Med. 1993;19:435-442.



Download - PICU Nutrition

Top Related