key: cord-0871328-z48u2x73
authors: Osuna-Padilla, Iván; Rodríguez-Moguel, Nadia Carolina; Aguilar-Vargas, Adriana; Rodríguez-Llamazares, Sebastián
title: Safety and tolerance of enteral nutrition in COVID-19 critically ill patients, a retrospective study
date: 2021-02-23
journal: Clin Nutr ESPEN
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2021.02.015
sha: de4ac2328e3cb99e32be62f2a419cadeb9837b1f
doc_id: 871328
cord_uid: z48u2x73

Background There is a lack of evidence about the tolerance of enteral nutrition (EN) in COVID-19 critically ill patients. However, several gastrointestinal manifestations related to COVID-19 have been described. The aims of this study were to analyze the incidence of gastrointestinal intolerance (GI) associated to EN (diarrhea, vomiting, gastroparesis and constipation) and to describe energy/protein provision along with biochemical alterations during the first week of EN. Methods A retrospective cohort of COVID-19 critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation. We reported daily enteral nutrition infusion and gastrointestinal manifestations within the first week of intubation and enteral nutrition initiation. Results Fifty-two patients were included; 40.3% were overweight and 46.2% were obese. During the first 7 days of EN, manifestations of GI intolerance such as vomiting, diarrhea and gastroparesis were present in 18 patients (32.4%). Hypernatremia (39%) was the most frequent electrolyte abnormality. Only Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) diagnosis was associated with a higher energy deficit on day 7. No associations between drug prescription and GI intolerance were observed. On day 4, 94.5% of patients were receiving more than 80% of energy requirements and 94.2% of protein requirements. Accumulated energy and protein deficits at day 3 were 2171.2 ± 945 kcal and 114.9 ± 49.2 g, respectively; and 2586.4 ± 1151 kcal, 133.3 ± 60.4 g at day 7. Conclusion Enteral nutrition is feasible and well-tolerated in COVID-19 patients with mechanical ventilation within the first week of enteral nutrition initiation. More studies are needed to elucidate the impact of nutritional therapy on infection course and outcomes.

Worldwide, as of January 2021, over ninety three million patients have been affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019 caused by SARS-CoV-2 [1] .

Studies have shown that nearly 30% of hospitalized patients require admission n to intensive care units (ICUs) for ventilatory support [2] .

Nutritional support should be started in the critically ill patient due to the inability to use the oral route during mechanical ventilation [3, 4] . Enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred over parenteral nutrition since it has been associated with a lower incidence of infectious complications, fewer days of hospital stay, and mortality reduction in previous meta-analyses [5] .

In COVID-19 patients, early EN initiation in the first 24 -48 hours after ICU admission or within 12 hours after mechanical ventilation is indicated, as proposed by the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) and Australian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (AuSPEN) [6] [7] [8] [9] . Prior to the pandemic, evidence supports role of early EN in gut integrity maintenance through multiple mechanisms, which may contribute to limit microbial translocation and systemic inflammation [3] .

Furthermore, proper timing of nutritional therapy, and optimal dosing of nutrients, considering amounts of energy from drips and medications [10] , should be prescribed to prevent malnutrition and metabolic alterations. Delay and interruptions in enteral feeding, mainly associated with GI dysfunction, impact the achievement of nutritional targets and impairs overall nutritional status.

However, early initiation of EN has been associated with gastrointestinal (GI) intolerance and vomiting in 30-70% of ICU patients, as well as gut ischemia in critically ill patients with shock [11] . Thus, GI intolerance may be a reason for EN contraindication and parenteral nutrition initiation [6] . Additionally, early EN initiation may be delayed by vasopressor therapy dosage in case of hemodynamic instability, which is characterized by hypovolemia, hypotension, hyperlactatemia J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f and tissular hypoperfusion, which can also increase the risk of gastrointestinal intolerance [11] . In a cross-sectional study of COVID-19 non-critically ill patients, 20 .5% reported at least one gastrointestinal symptom. At the onset of infection, the most common manifestations were diarrhea (17.8%), abdominal pain (9.8%), and vomiting (7.1%) [12] . Although this might influence clinical decisions regarding EN initiation, there is a lack of evidence about safety and tolerance of enteral nutrition specifically in COVID-19 critically ill patients.

The aims of this study were to analyze the incidence of gastrointestinal intolerance associated to EN (diarrhea, vomiting, gastroparesis and constipation) during the first week, and to evaluate associations between clinical and laboratory data with GI intolerance and energy-protein deficits in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation due to confirmed COVID-19.

In a retrospective cohort study, we included critically ill patients over 18 years old with a documented diagnosis of COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation from March 1 2020 to June 30 2020 in the National Institute of Respiratory Diseases, a tertiary-care hospital in Mexico City, Mexico. For inclusion, COVID-19 diagnosis was confirmed by both RT-PCR for SARS-CoV2 and suggestive tomographic findings. Patients with unavailable data of time of initiation and prescription of EN, as well as patients that required less than 48 hours of mechanical ventilation were excluded. A total of 137 patients were screened during the study period, only 52 patients were included in the analysis (Figure 1 ). This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Institute of Respiratory Diseases (Register #C51-20).

From patient records, demographic information including sex, age, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) were collected. Prescribed drugs with nutritional implications (steroids, benzodiazepines, opioids, neuromuscular blocking agents (NBA), sedatives, dexmedetomidine, insulin regimen and vasopressors), as well as J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio, medical history of non-communicable diseases and biochemical parameters (acid-base status, electrolytes, glucose, and lipid levels) were also registered. APACHE II and SOFA scales were calculated at first day of nutritional assessment within 24 hours of hospital admission. From nursing charts, we recollected diet infusion, stool output, gastric residual volume, abdominal distention and vomiting. Clinical outcomes (length of stay, length of ventilation and mortality) were also reported.

Orogastric tubes were inserted as part of routine clinical care for mechanically ventilated patients. Orogastric tube placement was used over other short-term accesses as a common Institutional practice to avoid epistaxis and sinus infection.

Following radiographic confirmation of the correct tip position, patients were evaluated by a team of certified ICU dietitians. Calories and protein were prescribed according to recommendations by the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN), with a general target of 25 kcal/kg and 1.3 g/kg, respectively [7, 8] . Ideal body weight was used in patients with a BMI>30 kg/m 2 and was calculated using Hamwi equations. Calories derived from non-nutritional sources were factored into the nutrition prescriptions in order to avoid overfeeding. Enteral feed products were prescribed using standard and specialized polymeric formulas, according to each patient's individual needs. The enteral nutrition regimen consisted of the total volume of feed administered over 18 hours, as per local feeding protocols.

Energy and protein prescription and provision were daily recorded. Total provided energy was calculated from glucose/propofol infusions and EN prescriptions. The daily achievement of an energy target (%) and the daily average protein provision during the first week after mechanical ventilation were calculated. The cumulative deficit was also calculated for day 3 and day 7. The adequate nutritional threshold was set at > 80% of prescribed targets [14] . Causes for interruptions in enteral J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f nutrition feeding were registered and classified as hemodynamic instability, medical procedures, gastrointestinal intolerance, or unjustified reasons. Incidence of gastrointestinal intolerance was recorded; diarrhea (frequency of bowel movement > 3-5 times/day or liquid stools), vomiting, constipation (no evacuation during 6 consecutive days) and gastroparesis (gastric residual volume >300 ml) [15, 16] . The latter corresponds to the cut-off point used in our institution to decide prokinetic administration to improve gastric emptying. Metabolic alterations during first 7 days of EN were also registered; hypokalemia (K <3.5 mmol/L), hyperkalemia (≥5 mmol/L), hypophosphatemia (<0.81 mmol/L), hypomagnesemia (<0.65 mmol/L), hypernatremia (≥145 mmol/L), hyperlactatemia (>2 mmol/L) and hyperglycemia (>10 mmol/L).

All statistical analyses were performed using STATA software, version 14. Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to determine whether the variables were normally distributed. Categorical variables were expressed as frequency rates (%), and continuous variables were expressed as means (standard deviation) or median and interquartile range (IQR) values (P 25 -P 75 ). Means for continuous variables were compared using independent group t-test when the data were normally or using the Mann-Whitney U test otherwise. Proportions for categorical variables were compared by χ² test between two groups. Energy and protein deficit at day 7 was dichotomized (yes/no) according to the mean observed in the sample (2586.4 kcal or 133.3 g, respectively). Gastrointestinal intolerance was operationalized as any gastrointestinal sign or symptoms during the first 7 days of EN. Logistic regression models were used to analyze the associations between clinical diagnosis and drug prescriptions with energy-protein deficits and GI intolerance during the first 7 days of EN, adjusted to age and SOFA scale. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

The demographic characteristics and clinical features of patients are displayed in 

There was a male predominance overall (83%), and the mean age of females (65.1 ± 17.8 years) was significantly higher than that of males (53.7 ± 12.9 years;

p<0.02). The average BMI of patients was 29.5 ± 4.4; 40% were overweight and 46% were obese. The most common comorbidities were diabetes (39%) and hypertension (37%). The mean APACHE II and SOFA scores were 21 ± 5 and 9 ± 2, respectively. Any degree of acute kidney injury was diagnosed in 21 (40%) patients.

While none of the patients required parenteral nutrition, only 2 patients did not receive enteral nutrition the first 3 days, starting until day 4. During the first week of hospital stay, patients received some drugs that affect nutrients' metabolism and gastrointestinal motility (described in Table 1 ). A total of 30 patients (57%) died.

Surviving patients were ventilated for 15.5 (9-25) days for an overall length of stay of 27.5 (16-41) days.

Gastrointestinal intolerance manifestations like vomiting, diarrhea, and gastroparesis were present in 18 patients (35%) at any moment during the first 7 days of EN ( Table 2 ). The incidence of constipation was found in 45 (87%) patients. Hemodynamic instability was the main reason (64%) to avoid EN delivery during the first 24 hours of mechanical ventilation. Interruptions due to GI intolerance were documented in 11 patients during the first week of EN (Table 3) . 

Laboratory alterations were collected and are reported in Table 4 . During the first

week of mechanical ventilation, glucose concentrations were above the normal range (>10 mmol/L) in 46% of patients. Hypernatremia was the most frequent electrolyte abnormality. Incidence of hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and hypophosphatemia was observed in 7%, 4%, and 9% of patients, respectively.

Associations between clinical diagnosis and drug prescriptions with energy-protein deficits and GI intolerance during the first 7 days of EN were evaluated. In logistic regression models, only AKI diagnosis was associated with energy deficit at day 7 after adjusted covariates (adjusted OR 4.65, CI95% 1. 19-18.1, p=0.02) . No associations for protein deficits and GI intolerance were observed (Table 5) .

This study is the first to describe the provision, safety, and tolerance of enteral nutrition in critically ill COVID-19 patients under mechanical ventilation.

Gastrointestinal manifestations associated with COVID-19 might represent a problem to achieve energy and protein goals as they lead to enteral feeding interruptions. Consequently, these gastrointestinal alterations can cause inadequate energy provision, weight loss and decubitus ulcer development [17, 18] .

In our study, 90% of patients who received enteral nutrition achieved >80% of their goal requirements by day 7 (22.8 ± 7.3 kcal/kg), which helps to dismiss common clinical concerns regarding GI intolerance in these patients. The highest incidence of intolerance was observed on day 3 (13%), which can be explained by the fact that progression to reach goal requirements was made on this particular day.

Whereas in day 7 we observed a 11% of intolerance overall. However, a global of gastrointestinal intolerance incidence observed in non-COVID19 ICU is around 26-J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f 50% [18] [19] [20] . Although this study only explored safety of EN in week one, the incidence of GI intolerance showed no association with the provision of EN.

In a multicentric study of 1321 critically ill patients, Zeinab Javid et al. report

underfeeding (provision <80% of estimated nutritional requirements) in 79.5% of cases [20] . A similar prevalence was observed in another multicentric study of 3390 mechanically ventilated patients, where 74% failed to meet at least 80% of energy targets [21] . The inclusion of ICU dietitians could improve the adequacy of EN delivery [22] . In our sample, adequacy of energy at day 4 was 94.5% and 94.2% for protein provision, could be explained by the daily monitoring of gastrointestinal tolerance, considerations of non-nutritional calories from glucose/propofol infusions and individualization of enteral nutrition regimen.

Moreover, individualized prescription of EN is important to avoid overfeeding; a common syndrome associated with hyperglycaemia, hypercapnia with impaired ventilator weaning, hypertriglyceridemia, and increased insulin requirements [23] .

Which is why energy amounts from non-nutritional sources should be factored into the nutrition prescriptions as done in this study where some patients received glucose and propofol infusions that provided high amounts of energy. On the contrary, underfeeding and malnutrition due to frequent EN interruptions in presence of GI dysfunction are common in critically ill patients [24] . In the ICU context, several factors might influence the presence of GI dysfunction like immobility, sedation, and hypoproteinemia [15] . Gastrointestinal integrity and functionality could be altered in patients with COVID-19, a suspicion raised due to symptoms such as diarrhea, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain [13] .

A meta-analysis on patients with COVID-19 reported a prevalence of 12.5% of diarrhea, 10.2% of nausea and vomiting, and abdominal discomfort in 9.2% [25] .

While in the first week of EN, our study found a prevalence of 25% of gastroparesis, 11% of vomiting and diarrhea in 15% of the cases.

In this retrospective cohort, patients received some drugs that affect nutrient metabolism and gastrointestinal motility during the first week of hospital stay; 63% of patients received steroids, 73, 87 and 100% received NBA, benzodiazepines, J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f and opioids, respectively. Drug regimen could be explaining the high prevalence of constipation observed (86.5%), as compared with previous reports with a prevalence between 24 to 84% in the regular ICU population [16, 26] . This abnormality becomes relevant because of its impact on other outcomes such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal distention and, in rare cases, intestinal pseudoobstruction that might cause perforation [26] . We observed no associations between prescribed medication or lactate concentrations higher than 2 mmol/L with the incidence of GI intolerance.

AKI is the most common complication associated with COVID19 in ICU [27] . In a multivariate regression model, only AKI diagnosis was associated with a higher caloric but not protein deficit. Our study also showed an association between AKI and higher energy deficit. Although interruption times during hemodialysis were not registered in this study, EN interruption due to hemodynamic instability during hemodialysis sessions, especially in patients that need higher doses of vasopressors during such treatment, might explain this deficit.

Our study is the first concerning GI intolerance and biochemical abnormalities associated to EN, providing evidence of EN as a safe intervention. The main strength of our study is the individualized prescription and monitoring of EN by an ICU dietitians' team. However, this study has some limitations; it was conducted at a single center that includes a small number of patients. Furthermore, the retrospective design was used in this study, and many patients were not included due to GI function missing data. Missing data was due to the lack of registration in the nursing chart of any of the gastrointestinal variables. Moreover, associations between GI symptoms and energy/protein deficits with infectious complications or patient outcomes were not evaluated.

In conclusion, EN is feasible and well-tolerated in COVID-19 critically ill patients 

The lead author affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported. The reporting of this work is compliant with STROBE guidelines. The lead author affirms that no important aspects of the study have been omitted and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. 15.5 (9-25) 27.5 14 (8.5-26) 30 (57%) Mean ± SD, Median (IQR), n (%) J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan

How to choose the best route of feeding during critical illness

Enteral Nutrition in the Mechanically Ventilated Patient

ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit

Malnutrition Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Considerations for Registered Dietitian Nutritionists

Nutrition Therapy in Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

ESPEN expert statements and practical guidance for nutritional management of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection

Nutrition management for critically and acutely unwell hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Australia

Relevance of non-nutritional calories in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients

Enteral versus parenteral early nutrition in ventilated adults with shock: a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group study (NUTRIREA-2)

Vasopressors and Nutrition Therapy: Safe Dose for the Outset of Enteral Nutrition?

Initial Gastrointestinal Manifestations in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 in 112 patients from Veracruz (Southeastern Mexico)

Clinical Outcomes Related to Protein Delivery in a Critically Ill Population: A Multicenter, Multinational Observation Study

Enteral tolerance in critically ill patients

Constipation in long-term ventilated patients: associated factors and impact on J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f intensive care unit outcomes

Gastrointestinal Manifestations of COVID-19: Impact on Nutrition Practices

The frequency, risk factors, and complications of gastrointestinal dysfunction during enteral nutrition in critically ill patients

Associations of hyperosmolar medications administered via nasogastric or nasoduodenal tubes and feeding adequacy, food intolerance and gastrointestinal complications amongst critically ill patients: A retrospective study

Nutritional adequacy in critically ill patients: Result of PNSI study

The prevalence of iatrogenic underfeeding in the nutritionally "at-risk" critically ill patient: Results of an international, multicenter, prospective study

The role of dietitians in critical care

Propofol: A Risk Factor for Caloric Overfeeding and Inadequate Protein Delivery

Prevalence and duration of reasons for enteral nutrition feeding interruption in a tertiary intensive care unit

Gastrointestinal Manifestations of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Virus Load in Fecal Samples From a Hong Kong Cohort: Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

Constipation, diarrhea, and prophylactic laxative bowel regimens in the critically ill: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Acute kidney injury in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

The authors thank all the included patients and their families,