A previous study suggested an association between low caloric intake(CI), negative nitrogen balance, and poor outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage(SAH). Objective of this multinational, multicenter study was to investigate whether clinical outcomes vary by protein intake(PI) or CI in SAH patients adjusting for the nutritional risk as judged by the modified NUTrition Risk in the Critically Ill (mNUTRIC) score.
Methods:
The International Nutrition Survey(INS) 2007-2014 was utilized to describe the characteristics, outcomes and nutrition use. A subgroup of patients from 2013 and 2014(when NUTRIC score was captured) examined the association between CI and PI and time to discharge alive(TTDA) from hospital using Cox regression models, adjusting for nutrition risk classified by the mNUTRIC score as low(0-4) or high(5-9).
Results:
There were 489 SAH patients(57% female with a mean ± SD age 57.5 ± 13.9 years, BMI of 25.9 ± 5.3 kg/m2 and APACHE-2 score 19.4 ± 7.0. Majority(85%) received enteral nutrition(EN) only, with a time to initiation of EN of 35.4 ± 35.2 hours. 64% had EN interrupted. Patients received a CI of 14.6 ± 7.1 calories/kg/day and PI 0.7 ± 0.3 grams/kg/day corresponding to 59% and 55% of total prescribed CI and PI respectively. In the 2013 and 2014 subgroup there were 226 SAH patients with a mNUTRIC score of 3.4 ± 1.8. Increased CI and PI were associated with faster TTDA among high mNUTRIC patients(HR per 20% of prescription received = 1.34[95% CI,1.03 -1.76] for CI and 1.44[1.07 -1.93] for PI), but not low mNUTRIC patients(CI: HR = 0.95[0.77 -1.16] PI:0.95[0.78 -1.16]).
Conclusions:
Results from this multicenter study found that SAH patients received under 60% of their prescribed CI and PI. Further, achieving greater CI and PI in hi risk SAH patients was associated with improved TTDA. mNUTRIC serves to identify SAH patients that benefit most from artificial nutrition and efforts to optimize protein and caloric delivery in this subpopulation should be maximized.
RinkelGJAlgraA. Long-term outcomes of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(4):349–356.
2.
SeuleMOswaldDMuroiCBrandiGKellerE. Outcome, return to work and health-related costs after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2020;33:1–9.
3.
SaandARYuFChenJChouSH. Systemic inflammation in hemorrhagic strokes—a novel neurological sign and therapeutic target?J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2019;39(6):959–988.
4.
ChaudhrySRStoffel-WagnerBKinfeTM, et al.Elevated systemic il-6 levels in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is an unspecific marker for post-sah complications. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(12):2580.
5.
ClaassenJAlbersDSchmidtJM, et al.Nonconvulsive seizures in subarachnoid hemorrhage link inflammation and outcome. Ann Neurol. 2014;75(5):771–781.
6.
DharRDiringerMN. The burden of the systemic inflammatory response predicts vasospasm and outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2008;8(3):404–412.
7.
WessellAPKoleMJCannarsaG, et al.A sustained systemic inflammatory response syndrome is associated with shunt-dependent hydrocephalus after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Neurosurg. 2018;130(6):1984–1991.
8.
BadjatiaNMonahanACarpenterA, et al.Inflammation, negative nitrogen balance, and outcome after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurology. 2015;84(7):680–687.
9.
BadjatiaNSeresDCarpenterA, et al.Free fatty acids and delayed cerebral ischemia after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2012;43(3):691–696.
10.
NaganoAYamadaYMiyakeHDomenKKoyamaT. Increased resting energy expenditure after endovascular coiling for subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2016;25(4):813–818.
11.
QiHYangXHaoC, et al.Clinical value of controlling nutritional status score in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. World Neurosurg. 2019;126:e1352–e1358.
12.
Suojaranta-YlinenRKariAHernesniemiJVapalahtiMTakalaJ. Hypermetabolism and increased peripheral release of amino acids after subarachnoidal hemorrhage and its operative treatment. Nutrition. 1996;12(5):327–333.
13.
BadjatiaNCremersSClaassenJ, et al.Serum glutamine and hospital-acquired infections after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurology. 2018;91(5):e421–e426.
14.
RahmanAHasanRMAgarwalaRMartinCDayAGHeylandDK. Identifying critically-ill patients who will benefit most from nutritional therapy: further validation of the “modified NUTRIC” nutritional risk assessment tool. Clin Nutr. 2016;35(1):158–162.
15.
HeylandDKDhaliwalRWangMDayAG. The prevalence of iatrogenic underfeeding in the nutritionally ‘at-risk’ critically ill patient: results of an international, multicenter, prospective study. Clin Nutr. 2015;34(4):659–666.
16.
WeiXDayAGOuellette-KuntzHHeylandDK. The association between nutritional adequacy and long-term outcomes in critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation: a multicenter cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(8):1569–1579.
17.
HeylandDKDhaliwalRJiangXDayAG. Identifying critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutrition therapy: the development and initial validation of a novel risk assessment tool. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R268.
18.
KnausWADraperEAWagnerDPZimmermanJE. Apache ii: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13(10):818–829.
19.
MorenoRVincentJLMatosR, et al.The use of maximum sofa score to quantify organ dysfunction/failure in intensive care. Results of a prospective, multicentre study. Working group on sepsis related problems of the ESICM. Intensive Care Med. 1999;25(7):686–696.
20.
Ata Ur-RehmanHMIshtiaqWYousafMBanoSMujahidAMAkhtarA.Modified nutrition risk in critically ill (mNUTRIC) score to assess nutritional risk in mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective observational study from the Pakistani population. Cureus. 2018;10(12):e3786.
21.
JeongDHHongSBLimCM, et al.Comparison of accuracy of NUTRIC and modified NUTRIC scores in predicting 28-day mortality in patients with sepsis: a single center retrospective study. Nutrients. 2018;10(7):911.
22.
JungYTParkJYJeonJKimMJLeeSHLeeJG. Association of inadequate caloric supplementation with 30-day mortality in critically ill postoperative patients with high modified NUTRIC score. Nutrients. 2018;10(11):1589.
23.
KalaiselvanMSRenukaMKArunkumarAS. Use of nutrition risk in critically ill (NUTRIC) score to assess nutritional risk in mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective observational study. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2017;21(5):253–256.
24.
LeeZYNoor AiriniIBarakatun-NisakMY. Relationship of energy and protein adequacy with 60-day mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a prospective observational study. Clin Nutr. 2018;37(4):1264–1270.
25.
MendesRPolicarpoSFortunaP, et al.Nutritional risk assessment and cultural validation of the modified NUTRIC score in critically ill patients-a multicenter prospective cohort study. J Crit Care. 2017;37:45–49.
26.
ReisAMDFructhenichtAVGMoreiraLF. NUTRIC score use around the world: a systematic review. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2019;31(3):379–385.
27.
RosaMHeylandDKFernandesDRabitoEIOliveiraMLMarcadentiA. Translation and adaptation of the NUTRIC score to identify critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutrition therapy. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2016;14:31–36.
28.
HeylandDK.Safety of prolonged use of trophic feeds in the critically ill patient: it depends on the nutrition risk of the patient!JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(4):452–454.
29.
HeartTN.Initial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury: the EDEN randomized trial. JAMA. 2012;307(8):795–803.
30.
RiceTWMoganSHaysMABernardGRJensenGLWheelerAP. Randomized trial of initial trophic versus full-energy enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(5):967–974.
31.
ChapmanMPeakeSLBellomoR, et al.Energy-dense versus routine enteral nutrition in the critically ill. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(19):1823–1834.
32.
NeedhamDMDinglasVDMorrisPE, et al.Physical and cognitive performance of patients with acute lung injury 1 year after initial trophic versus full enteral feeding. Eden trial follow-up. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.2013;188(5):567–576.
33.
LantiguaHOrtega-GutierrezSSchmidtJM, et al.Subarachnoid hemorrhage: who dies, and why?Crit Care. 2015;19(1):309.
34.
BearDEWandragLMerriweatherJL, et al.The role of nutritional support in the physical and functional recovery of critically ill patients: a narrative review. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):226.
35.
HarmsenWJRibbersGMHeijenbrok-KalMH, et al.Fatigue after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is highly prevalent in the first-year postonset and related to low physical fitness: a longitudinal study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;98(1):7–13.
36.
HarmsenWJKhajehLRibbersGM, et al.People with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage have low physical fitness and can be predisposed to inactive and sedentary lifestyles. Phys Ther. 2019;99(7):904–914.
37.
Haug NordenmarkTKaricTRoeCSortebergWSortebergA.The post-aSAH syndrome: a self-reported cluster of symptoms in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Neurosurg. 2019;132(5):1–10.
38.
HarmsenWJRibbersGMZegersB, et al.Impaired muscle strength may contribute to fatigue in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Int J Rehabil Res. 2017;40(1):29–36.
39.
TaufiqueZMayTMeyersE, et al.Predictors of poor quality of life 1 year after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurosurgery. 2016;78(2):256–264.
40.
van GasselRJJBaggermanMRvan de PollMCG. Metabolic aspects of muscle wasting during critical illness. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2020;23(2):96–101.
41.
WischmeyerPEPuthuchearyZSan MillanIButzDGrocottMPW. Muscle mass and physical recovery in ICU: innovations for targeting of nutrition and exercise. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2017;23(4):269–278.
42.
GungabissoonUHacquoilKBainsC, et al.Prevalence, risk factors, clinical consequences, and treatment of enteral feed intolerance during critical illness. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2015;39(4):441–448.
43.
MentecHDupontHBocchettiMCaniPPoncheFBleichnerG.Upper digestive intolerance during enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: frequency, risk factors, and complications. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(10):1955–1961.
44.
DeaneAChapmanMJFraserRJBryantLKBurgstadCNguyenNQ. Mechanisms underlying feed intolerance in the critically ill: implications for treatment. World J Gastroenterol. 2007;13(29):3909–3917.
45.
NguyenNQNgMPChapmanMFraserRJHollowayRH. The impact of admission diagnosis on gastric emptying in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2007;11(1):R16.
46.
CarmichaelHJoyceSSmithTPattonLLambert WagnerAWiktorAJ. Safety and efficacy of intraoperative gastric feeding during burn surgery. Burns. 2019;45(5):1089–1093.
47.
JacobsDGJacobsDOKudskKA, et al.Practice management guidelines for nutritional support of the trauma patient. J Trauma. 2004;57(3):660–679.
48.
SwiatloTBertaJWMauldinK. A. Quality improvement study: comparison of volume-based and rate-based tube feeding efficacy and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. Nutr Clin Pract. 2019;35(3):578–583.
49.
HolykABeldenVSirimaturosM, et al.Volume-based feeding enhances enteral delivery by maximizing the optimal rate of enteral feeding (feed more). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2019;44(6):1038–1046.
50.
SachdevGBackesKThomasBWSingRFHuynhT. Volume-based protocol improves delivery of enteral nutrition in critically ill trauma patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2020;44(5):874–879.
51.
HeylandDKMurchLCahillN, et al.Enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route feeding protocol in critically ill patients: results of a cluster randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(12):2743–2753.
