RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Phase angle (PhA) obtained by bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) works as a predictor of clinical outcomes. Specific cutoff values for longitudinal changes and their relationship with clinical outcomes are still undetermined for patients with critical illness. Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the association between longitudinal changes in PhA during intensive care unit (ICU) stay and all-cause 90-day mortality in patients critically ill with COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adults critically ill with COVID-19 undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation with a length of stay >14 days. BIA was performed at ICU admission and at days 7 and 14 of ICU stay; PhA and hydration parameters were collected. Differences between survivors and nonsurvivors were assessed. Longitudinal changes were evaluated using repeated-measures analysis of variance. A receiver operating characteristics curve for PhA declined (%) during the first 14 days, and all-cause 90-day mortality was performed. Survival probability was reported using hazard ratios (HR). RESULTS: One-hundred nine patients were included. The change in the value of PhA was close to 17.1%. Nonsurvivors had a higher prevalence of individuals with a decrease in PhA >22.2% (area under the curve = 0.65) in the first 14 days in comparison with survivors (70% vs 34.8%, P < 0.01). PhA decrease >22.2% at 14 days was a significant predictor of all-cause 90-day mortality (HR = 2.2, 95% CI 1.71-3.6, P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Changes in PhA are associated with all-cause 90-day mortality. Future studies should be directed to interventions to prevent changes in this nutrition marker.
RESUMEN
Objective: the aim of this study was to compare the incidence rate of feeding intolerance (FI) during supine (SP) or prone positioning (PP) in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: this was a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with overweight or obesity who received enteral nutrition (EN) in prone or supine positioning continuously during the first five days of mechanical ventilation. Nutritional risk, anthropometric measurements and body composition were assessed at the first 24 hours upon Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. Biochemical and clinical variables (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II], Acute Kidney Injury [AKI] or comorbidities diagnosis) were collected. Pharmacotherapy (prokinetics, sedatives or neuromuscular blocking agents) and FI incidence (gastric residual volume [GRV] ≥ 200 ml or ≥ 500 ml, vomiting or diarrhea) were daily recorded. Constipation was defined as the absence of evacuation for five consecutive days. Results: eighty-two patients were included. Higher rate of prophylactic prokinetic prescription was observed in PP (42.8 vs 12.5 %, p = 0.002). GRV ≥ 200 in supine position was not different when compared to PP (p = 0.47). Vomiting episodes in supine compared to PP showed no difference between groups (15 % vs 24 %, p = 0.31). No differences in diarrhea events were detected (10 % vs 4.7 %, p = 0.36). Constipation was common in both groups (95 % vs 82 %, p = 0.06). Conclusion: FI during prone position was not different in comparison to supine position. Routinely use of prokinetics in continuous prone position may help to prevent FI incidence. Algorithm development is necessary for FI prevention and treatment so to avoid EN interruptions and adverse clinical outcomes. (AU)
Objetivo: comparar la incidencia de intolerancia a la alimentación entre pacientes críticos en posición supino (PS) o prono (PP). Métodos: cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes bajo ventilación mecánica por distrés respiratorio por COVID-19 y sobrepeso y obesidad, quienes recibieron nutrición enteral (NE) en PP o PS. Se evaluaron riesgo nutricional, mediciones antropométricas y composición corporal en las primeras 24 horas de ingreso a la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI). Se recolectaron variables bioquímicas y clínicas (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II], lesión renal aguda y otras comorbilidades). Se registró el esquema de farmacoterapia prescrita durante los primeros cinco días (procinéticos, sedantes y bloqueadores neuromusculares). Se evaluó la incidencia de intolerancia a la alimentación, definida como la presencia de residuo gástrico (RG) ≥ 200 o ≥ 500 ml, vómito, diarrea o estreñimiento. Resultados: fueron incluidos 82 pacientes. Se observó una mayor prescripción de procinéticos como terapia profiláctica en PP (42,8 vs. 12,5 %, p = 0,002). No se observaron diferencias en RG ≥ 200 ml (p = 0,47) ni vómito (p = 0,31) entre ambos grupos. No se observaron diferencias en episodios de diarrea (10 % en PS vs. 4,7 % en PP, p = 0,36). El estreñimiento fue común en ambos grupos de estudio (95 vs. 82 %, p = 0,06). Conclusiones: la PP no se relaciona con una mayor incidencia de intolerancias a la alimentación. El uso rutinario de procinéticos durante la PP continua puede ayudar a prevenir la incidencia de dichas intolerancias. Es necesario el desarrollo de algoritmos para la prevención y tratamiento de las intolerancias a la alimentación para evitar interrupciones en la NE y desenlaces no deseables. (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Intolerancia Alimentaria , Sobrepeso , Estudios Retrospectivos , Posición Supina , Posición Prona , ObesidadRESUMEN
Introduction: Objective: the aim of this study was to compare the incidence rate of feeding intolerance (FI) during supine (SP) or prone positioning (PP) in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods: this was a retrospective cohort study of critically ill patients with overweight or obesity who received enteral nutrition (EN) in prone or supine positioning continuously during the first five days of mechanical ventilation. Nutritional risk, anthropometric measurements and body composition were assessed at the first 24 hours upon Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission. Biochemical and clinical variables (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II], Acute Kidney Injury [AKI] or comorbidities diagnosis) were collected. Pharmacotherapy (prokinetics, sedatives or neuromuscular blocking agents) and FI incidence (gastric residual volume [GRV] ≥ 200 ml or ≥ 500 ml, vomiting or diarrhea) were daily recorded. Constipation was defined as the absence of evacuation for five consecutive days. Results: eighty-two patients were included. Higher rate of prophylactic prokinetic prescription was observed in PP (42.8 vs 12.5 %, p = 0.002). GRV ≥ 200 in supine position was not different when compared to PP (p = 0.47). Vomiting episodes in supine compared to PP showed no difference between groups (15 % vs 24 %, p = 0.31). No differences in diarrhea events were detected (10 % vs 4.7 %, p = 0.36). Constipation was common in both groups (95 % vs 82 %, p = 0.06). Conclusion: FI during prone position was not different in comparison to supine position. Routinely use of prokinetics in continuous prone position may help to prevent FI incidence. Algorithm development is necessary for FI prevention and treatment so to avoid EN interruptions and adverse clinical outcomes.
Introducción: Objetivo: comparar la incidencia de intolerancia a la alimentación entre pacientes críticos en posición supino (PS) o prono (PP). Métodos: cohorte retrospectiva de pacientes bajo ventilación mecánica por distrés respiratorio por COVID-19 y sobrepeso y obesidad, quienes recibieron nutrición enteral (NE) en PP o PS. Se evaluaron riesgo nutricional, mediciones antropométricas y composición corporal en las primeras 24 horas de ingreso a la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI). Se recolectaron variables bioquímicas y clínicas (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [APACHE II], lesión renal aguda y otras comorbilidades). Se registró el esquema de farmacoterapia prescrita durante los primeros cinco días (procinéticos, sedantes y bloqueadores neuromusculares). Se evaluó la incidencia de intolerancia a la alimentación, definida como la presencia de residuo gástrico (RG) ≥ 200 o ≥ 500 ml, vómito, diarrea o estreñimiento. Resultados: fueron incluidos 82 pacientes. Se observó una mayor prescripción de procinéticos como terapia profiláctica en PP (42,8 vs. 12,5 %, p = 0,002). No se observaron diferencias en RG ≥ 200 ml (p = 0,47) ni vómito (p = 0,31) entre ambos grupos. No se observaron diferencias en episodios de diarrea (10 % en PS vs. 4,7 % en PP, p = 0,36). El estreñimiento fue común en ambos grupos de estudio (95 vs. 82 %, p = 0,06). Conclusiones: la PP no se relaciona con una mayor incidencia de intolerancias a la alimentación. El uso rutinario de procinéticos durante la PP continua puede ayudar a prevenir la incidencia de dichas intolerancias. Es necesario el desarrollo de algoritmos para la prevención y tratamiento de las intolerancias a la alimentación para evitar interrupciones en la NE y desenlaces no deseables.