Nutritional support for children during critical illness: European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) metabolism, endocrine and nutrition section position statement and clinical recommendations

Abstract

Background

Nutritional support is considered essential for the outcome of paediatric critical illness. There is a lack of methodologically sound trials to provide evidence-based guidelines leading to diverse practices in PICUs worldwide. Acknowledging these limitations, we aimed to summarize the available literature and provide practical guidance for the paediatric critical care clinicians around important clinical questions many of which are not covered by previous guidelines.

Objective

To provide an ESPNIC position statement and make clinical recommendations for the assessment and nutritional support in critically ill infants and children.

Design

The metabolism, endocrine and nutrition (MEN) section of the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) generated 15 clinical questions regarding different aspects of nutrition in critically ill children. After a systematic literature search, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) grading system was applied to assess the quality of the evidence, conducting meta-analyses where possible, to generate statements and clinical recommendations, which were then voted on electronically. Strong consensus (> 95% agreement) and consensus (> 75% agreement) on these statements and recommendations was measured through modified Delphi voting rounds.

Results

The final 15 clinical questions generated a total of 7261 abstracts, of which 142 publications were identified relevant to develop 32 recommendations. A strong consensus was reached in 21 (66%) and consensus was reached in 11 (34%) of the recommendations. Only 11 meta-analyses could be performed on 5 questions.

Conclusions

We present a position statement and clinical practice recommendations. The general level of evidence of the available literature was low. We have summarised this and provided a practical guidance for the paediatric critical care clinicians around important clinical questions.

FormalPara Take-home message
There is a lack of high-quality evidence to guide nutrition in paediatric critical illness. This position statement and clinical recommendations summarise the existing evidence around 15 of the most important clinical questions, and where no evidence is available, suggest good clinical practice.

Introduction

Critical illness induces profound metabolic and endocrine changes in close interaction with the alterations in autonomic and immune systems. The metabolic and endocrine changes are characterized by catabolism, insulin resistance and shifts in substrate utilisation [1]. These changes evolve during the course of illness, where the acute changes are assumed to be advantageous for survival. However, following the acute phase these changes might become harmful [1,2]. Parallel to these changes, critically ill children frequently experience feeding difficulties, caused by (perceived) feed intolerance and feeding interruptions [3,4]. This often leads to undernourishment with a cumulative macronutrient deficit during the course of their Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) stay [5,6]. Malnutrition at PICU admission is frequent (15–25% prevalence rates) in developing countries; nutritional status deterioration is also an early and frequent phenomenon in this setting with almost one-third of critically ill children presenting with nutritional indices decline [7,8,9]. Muscle wasting is also a constant, intense and rapid phenomenon [10]. Malnourishment and macronutrient deficits during critical illness have been associated with increased morbidity (infections, weakness, prolonged mechanical ventilation and delayed recovery) as well as increased mortality. However, overfeeding has also been shown to pose harm to critically ill children, especially during the acute phase. As the metabolic and endocrine response evolves during the course of critical illness, possibly the nutritional support should also accommodate these changes and differ during the different phases of paediatric critical illness as well.

Although optimal nutrition is considered essential to improve outcomes in critically ill children, large well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with clinically relevant outcome measures are scarce [11, 12]. The limited evidence has led to a wide variation in nutritional practices worldwide, between individual clinicians, PICUs and countries [13, 14]. Yet the evidence is increasing, and the number of publications on nutritional support in paediatric critical illness in 2018 has doubled when compared with 2012 and tripled since 2007. In 2017 the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) published their guidelines for the provision of nutritional support in the PICU [15]. However, several important clinical topics remained unanswered [16]. For instance, term neonates (defined as > 37–44 weeks’ gestational age) which comprise around 32% of the PICU population, were excluded from these recommendations [17]. As a multidisciplinary research group within Europe, the ESPNIC metabolism, endocrinology and nutrition (MEN) section, therefore, felt it was timely to address unanswered clinical questions and review new evidence to produce a position statement and recommendations on artificial nutrition in critically ill children.

Methodology

Selection of members

The working group was composed of a multidisciplinary team of 11 European specialists (five paediatric intensivists, two nurses and four dietitians) in nutritional support for critically ill children, who are members of the MEN section of the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). Four members (LT/CJ/KJ/SV) were well trained and experienced in the development and methodology of systematic reviews and development of recommendations. A biostatistician (JvR) was added to the multi-disciplinary team specifically for the expertise in meta-analyses, but did not participate in development of the recommendations or the voting process.

Question development and search strategy

The working group met initially, in June 2017, to discuss the project, and generate 15 broad clinical questions. The systematic literature search was performed by biomedical information specialists (EK, SG, GdJ and WB; see acknowledgements) of the Erasmus Medical Centre Library (Rotterdam, The Netherlands) in four databases (Embase.com; Medline Epub (Ovid); Cochrane Central; Web of Science) and included all articles published from 1997 until May 2018 and updated in November 30 2018. Supplement file 1 describes the search terms used per question.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were agreed by the group. Inclusion criteria were RCTs, case–control, before and after and cohort studies including critically ill term neonates and children (aged ≥ 37 weeks’ gestational age—18 years). We only included manuscripts written in English or French, which excluded three papers, one in Russian two in Chinese. Publications describing studies in pre-term infants were excluded, unless the question specifically related to neonatal PICU patients and no evidence existed in term neonates (Question 4). In addition to reviews, animal studies, case reports, editorials, commentaries, conference abstracts and letters were excluded. Separate publications presenting outcomes from the same study population were included, but seen as one study, and the study that provided the most complete data to answer the question was included. For each of the 15 questions, key search words were defined, and specific search combinations were developed for the four databases (Supplementary file 1).

Selection of studies

In order to select the eligible studies, the results from each database were combined and exported to Endnote, followed by removal of duplicates and exportation to a Word document, allowing at least two working group members to separately undertake the screening of the abstracts in a standardized way. Abstracts were screened for eligibility by the group members, and those which were thought to be eligible were automatically exported as final abstract. Areas of disagreement were resolved by discussion. Abstracts that determined to be eligible by one of the two members were discussed with a third reviewer before decision of inclusion or exclusion. If eligibility criteria were met, full manuscripts were procured. Similarly, if a disagreement on the eligibility of the paper occurred, a discussion took place with a third reviewer. We also examined reference lists from included articles for suitable studies. A PRISMA diagram is shown in Supplementary file 2.

Data extraction and assessment of study quality and evidence grading

Data from eligible papers were extracted by two reviewers with the primary reviewer not an author on the paper. In addition, the risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers independently using the SIGN critical appraisal checklists available for each study design (https://www.sign.ac.uk/checklists-and-notes.html) (Supplementary file 3). Any disagreement with grading was discussed and the two lead authors (LT/FV) reviewed all the evidence grading. The classification of the literature into levels of evidence was performed according to the SIGN grading system (Supplementary file 3).

Data analysis including meta-analyses

In some questions, the data were combined statistically in a meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: there was more than one study, the combined studies (in one analysis) were either randomised trials or observational studies, the population and the intervention were sufficiently similar to combine and the outcomes were the same, or for continuous outcome variables, if we had data on the distribution of the variable. To perform the meta-analyses, we a priori defined clinically relevant outcome variables on which the meta-analyses would be performed. These were mortality, new infections, gastro-intestinal complications (vomiting aspiration/diarrhoea/NEC-ischemia), length of ventilation and length of stay (PICU/hospital). Anticipating a broad inconsistency of these outcome variables we chose a pragmatic meta-analysis. The risk of bias tables are presented in Supplementary File 4. For dichotomous outcomes, we used a random effects model for the relative risk of the intervention to compute a pooled relative risk and its 95% CI. The Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman method was used to estimate the between-study variance, and a continuity correction of 0.5 was applied in case of zero cell frequencies. The heterogeneity of combined study results was assessed using the inconsistency statistic and tested using Cochran's Q test. The meta-analyses were performed using R version 3.6.1 with the package meta.

Consensus methodology and grading of the recommendations

Based on the results from the systematic review and meta-analyses, a first draft of recommendations was composed, including the supporting text and grade of recommendation. The classification of the grades of recommendation (A–D, Good Clinical Practice) was undertaken according to the SIGN grading system (Supplementary file 3) [18]. In May 2018, a second meeting took place to discuss all questions and review the evidence quality and recommendations. The group generated the position statement and a draft guideline with a total of 32 recommendations, which was followed by a round of electronic voting to gain consensus using a Delphi method in June 2018 [19, 20]. The survey involved voting on each recommendation on 3-point scale with categories: disagree, agree and unsure. This was created and distributed via a proprietary electronic online platform hosted by the University of Southampton (https://www.isurvey.soton.ac.uk/) and checked by one of the authors (LM) without identifying features to ensure anonymity. In round 2, we provided the group results and asked the group to re-vote. We defined strong consensus as agreement of > 95%, consensus as agreement of 75—95% and no consensus as agreement < 75%. Feedback received during the first round of online voting was used to modify and improve the recommendations in order to reach a higher degree of consensus at the final online voting in September 2018. Any recommendations with an agreement equal to or lower than 95% were discussed at a consensus meeting which took place on 31 October 2018. Following a revised meta-analysis, a last and final meeting of a core group of four members took place in November 2019, which was followed by a final round of electronic voting. The AGREE reporting checklist for guideline development was followed (Supplementary File 5). The ESPNIC process for endorsement of guidelines was undertaken.

Results

A total of 7261 abstracts were screened. Subsequently 142 publications were reviewed, and data were extracted (Supplementary file 2) and included in the development of 32 recommendations (Table 1). The general level of evidence was low: out of the 142 publications, 5 (3.5%) were graded 1+ according to the SIGN grading system, 27 (18.9%) were graded 1−, six (4.2%) were graded 2++ , 20 (14.0%) were graded 2+ , 82 (58.0%) were graded 2−, one (0.7%) was graded 3 and one (0.7%) was graded 4. Furthermore, the data were suitable for meta-analysis for only 11 (sub)questions, all of which had dichotomous outcome measures. All forest plots of the meta-analyses have been provided in supplement file 6. Overall, heterogeneity of the studies suitable for meta-analysis varied with I2 0–91% (p value 0.13–0.83), and two meta-analyses with a I2 of higher than 50%, 53% and 55%, respectively, for the impact of gastric versus post-pyloric feeding on aspiration and intermittent versus continuous feeding on diarrhoea. The pooled relative risk showed a significant difference between groups in only 1 out of these 11 meta-analyses. Enteral feeding versus no enteral feeding in children on haemodynamic support resulted in a lower risk of mortality (RR 0.41 [95%CI 0.20–0.86]). Accordingly, the grading of the 32 recommendations was as follows: five recommendations were graded as B, five as C, 12 as D and 10 were GCP.

Table 1 Summary of recommendations for nutritional support for children during critical illness

A strong consensus was reached in 21 (66%) and consensus was reached in 11 (34%) of the recommendations. A detailed discussion of the clinical questions, the recommendations with evidence grading, and level of consensus achieved are presented in Supplementary file 7 with a full reference list. The table of evidence is presented in Supplementary file 8. A summary of all recommendations is shown in Table 1. A summary of comparisons between our recommendations and those presented by ASPEN/SCCM is shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Comparison between American and European guidelines on paediatric intensive care nutrition support

Discussion

This position statement with clinical recommendations provides new guidance based on new evidence, as well as reinforcing most of the existing 2017 ASPEN Guidelines. These ASPEN PICU nutrition guidelines published in 2017 were based on a literature search from January 1995 to March 2016 and consisted of 17 recommendations. These ESPNIC clinical recommendations are based on an updated literature search until November 2018. Both the American (ASPEN) and our European guidelines provide expert opinion which is essential in this setting where limited data are available. Our recommendations are predominantly consistent with the ASPEN guideline recommendations (Table 2) which helps assist in the uptake and implementation of guidelines into practice [21]. Implementation of evidence into clinical practice remains problematic, in 2017 a European survey of 59 PICUs found that 69% of PICUs still had no local feeding guidelines [13]. Additionally, this position statement generated new clinical guidance as half of our clinical questions differed from the ASPEN guidelines. These included guidance on feeding neonates with arterial umbilical arterial catheters; the type of enteral formula to be used; the amount or type of each macronutrient to provide; the value of gastric residual volume to assess feeding tolerance; the use of prokinetics to enhance feeding tolerance and the use of feeding protocols to improve outcomes. Furthermore, these new ESPNIC recommendations covered in more detail the indications for enteral nutrition in various subgroups of patients in clinicians are in general uncertain on how to progress feeding (i.e. term neonates and children on haemodynamic support and after cardiac surgery) [13]. In addition, our position statement provides a different stand on two recommendations as compared with the ASPEN guidelines, based on new available research. In contrast with the ASPEN guidelines we recommend to consider withholding parenteral nutrition during the first week in neonates and children, independent of their nutritional state [8, 15,22]. Furthermore, there was also strong consensus in our working group that there is insufficient evidence to recommend a protein/amino acid intake of 1.5 g/kg/day or higher during the acute phase of disease to benefit clinical outcomes [15]. The intake of 1.5 g/kg/day or higher has shown to prevent cumulative negative protein balance [23, 24]. However, future research should consider that the exact threshold is unknown and might overestimate protein/amino acid requirements during acute critical illness; thus further work should, therefore, also investigate low protein/amino acid intakes during that phase [25].

Overall, as expected, the general level of evidence was low, and the meta-analyses provided little value because of the heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes, population and the type of study designs (few RCTs). This resulted in few studies able to be pooled for this analysis. Despite these limitations, we formulated 32 recommendations which can guide PICU healthcare professionals. There are a few key messages to be taken from our position statement. Although hardly any methodologically sound studies exist, recent developments have shown that nutritional interventions in our PICUs are capable of impacting on the short- and long-term outcome in critically ill children [26, 27]. Despite the lack of effect shown of protocols on mortality and NEC in the meta-analysis, as the level of this evidence was low, all individual studies did show positive effect on other variables such as time to initiate feeding and achievement of energy goals, but it was not possible to pool these in a meta-analysis. Therefore, despite this, we still recommend PICUs use feeding protocols which provide guidance on the assessment of nutritional status and the start and advancement of feeding. A final key messages from this position statement is to encourage the enteral feeding of critically ill neonates and children early wherever possible, unless clear contraindications exist. Although starting early EN is recommended, no evidence exists to support high nutritional intake during the acute phase of critical illness and withholding supplemental PN during the first week in PICU may be considered when enteral nutrition is insufficient.

Limitations

We acknowledge that these clinical recommendations are based at times on sparse paediatric evidence. Moreover, for many questions and clinical recommendations we could not be age-specific, although the (patho)physiology of nutritional and metabolic changes during critical illness is age-dependent. For instance, the recommendations specifically for neonates were partially based upon studies in preterm neonates as no evidence existed in term neonates. The threshold of > 37 weeks in our recommendations is recognized as rigid and we cannot exclude that some of our recommendations also apply for late preterm (> 34 weeks) or early term (> 36 weeks) neonates. Similarly, the same arguments can be raised for adolescents, where for certain (older) adolescents, recommendations from adult guidelines might be suitable. However, the mean age in adult ICUs is 60.9 years [28] and it, therefore, cannot be assumed that critically ill young adults are similar in their (patho)physiologic response to nutritional and metabolic changes to elderly patients. We further acknowledge that, as a priori anticipated, pragmatic meta-analyses were required due to the inconsistencies in the outcome variables. Another limitation is that our consensus voting was based only on the views of our study team of 11 experts. Finally, as already elaborated on in our discussion, aside from several novel features our recommendations have an overlap with the American (ASPEN) guidelines published in 2017. A future collaboration between the American and European societies might improve upcoming guidelines and help implement the recommendations worldwide. Despite these limitations, this work has provided an updated summary of the existing evidence, including questions around term neonates, which are not dealt with by other recommendations or guidelines, yet comprise a significant amount of the European PICU population [29, 30].

Conclusion

This ESPNIC position statement with recommendations provides a ‘best-available-evidence’ guide for clinicians working in PICU to provide nutritional support in this setting. The lack of methodologically sound trials and the heterogeneous character of studies available were important barriers in the generation of these recommendations. Many recommendations are based on expert consensus and have a low level of evidence. Nonetheless, our recommendations support the use of a formal nutritional assessment and a feeding protocol in all PICUs.

References

  1. 1.

    Joosten KF, Kerklaan D, Verbruggen SC (2016) Nutritional support and the role of the stress response in critically ill children. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 19:226–233

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Joosten KFM, Eveleens RD, Verbruggen S (2019) Nutritional support in the recovery phase of critically ill children. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 22(2):152–158. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0000000000000549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Keehn A, O'Brien C, Mazurak V et al (2015) Epidemiology of interruptions to nutrition support in critically ill children in the pediatric intensive care unit. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 39:211–217

    Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Leong AY, Cartwright KR, Guerra GG, Joffe AR, Mazurak VC, Larsen BM (2014) A Canadian survey of perceived barriers to initiation and continuation of enteral feeding in PICUs. Pediatr Crit Care Med 15:e49–55

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Hulst J, Joosten K, Zimmermann L et al (2004) Malnutrition in critically ill children: from admission to 6 months after discharge. Clin Nutr 23:223–232

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hulst JM, van Goudoever JB, Zimmermann LJ et al (2004) The effect of cumulative energy and protein deficiency on anthropometric parameters in a pediatric ICU population. Clin Nutr 23:1381–1389

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Prince NJ, Brown KL, Mebrahtu TF, Parslow RC, Peters MJ (2014) Weight-for-age distribution and case-mix adjusted outcomes of 14,307 pediatric intensive care admissions. Intensive Care Med 40:1132–1139

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    van Puffelen E, Hulst JM, Vanhorebeek I, Dulfer K, Van den Berghe G, Verbruggen SCAT, Joosten KFM (2018) Outcomes of delaying parenteral nutrition for 1 week vs initiation within 24 hours among undernourished children in pediatric intensive care. JAMA Netw Open 1:e182668

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    van Puffelen E, Hulst JM, Vanhorebeek I et al (2020) Effect of late versus early initiation of parenteral nutrition on weight deterioration during PICU stay: secondary analysis of the PEPaNIC randomised controlled trial. Clin Nutr 39(1):104–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2019.02.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Valla FV, Young DK, Rabilloud M et al (2017) Thigh ultrasound monitoring identifies decreases in quadriceps femoris thickness as a frequent observation in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 18:e339–e347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Joffe A, Anton N, Lequier L et al (2009) Nutritional support for critically ill children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (5):CD005144. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005144

  12. 12.

    Fivez T, Kerklaan D, Mesotten D, Verbruggen S, Joosten K, Van den Berghe G (2017) Evidence for the use of parenteral nutrition in the pediatric intensive care unit. Clin Nutr 36:218–223

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Tume LN, Balmaks R, da Cruz E et al (2018) Enteral feeding practices in infants with congenital heart disease across European PICUs: a European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Survey. Pediatr Crit Care Med 19:137–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kerklaan D, Fivez T, Mehta NM et al (2016) Worldwide survey of nutritional practices in PICUs. Pediatr Crit Care Med 17:10–18

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Mehta NM, Skillman HE, Irving SY et al (2017) Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the pediatric critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. Pediatr Crit Care Med 18:675–715

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Valla FV, Gaillard Le Roux B, Tume LN (2017) Pediatric intensive care nutrition guidelines 2017: key questions remain unanswered. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 2018(42):9

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    https://www.picanet.org.uk/Audit/Annual-Reporting/PICANet_2017_Annual_Report_Tables_and_Figures_FINAL_v2.0.pdf. Accessed PICANET, 2018. Accessed November 2019, 2018

  18. 18.

    Harbour R, Miller J (2001) A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 323:334–336

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H (2000) Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs 32:1008–1015

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP (2001) A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud 38:195–200

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    van Puffelen E, Jacobs A, Verdoorn CJM et al (2019) International survey of de-implementation of initiating parenteral nutrition early in pediatric intensive care units. BMC Health Serv Res 19:379

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    van Puffelen E, Vanhorebeek I, Joosten KFM, Wouters PJ, Van den Berghe G, Verbruggen S (2018) Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill, term neonates: a preplanned secondary subgroup analysis of the PEPaNIC multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2:505–515

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Jotterand Chaparro C, Laure Depeyre J, Longchamp D, Perez MH, Taffe P, Cotting J (2016) How much protein and energy are needed to equilibrate nitrogen and energy balances in ventilated critically ill children? Clin Nutr 35:460–467

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bechard LJ, Parrott JS, Mehta NM (2012) Systematic review of the influence of energy and protein intake on protein balance in critically ill children. J Pediatr 161(333–9):e1

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Vanhorebeek I, Verbruggen S, Casaer MP et al (2017) Effect of early supplemental parenteral nutrition in the pediatric ICU: a preplanned observational study of post-randomisation treatments in the PEPaNIC trial. Lancet Respir Med 5:475–483

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fivez T, Kerklaan D, Mesotten D et al (2016) Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill children. N Engl J Med 374:1111–1122

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Verstraete S, Verbruggen SC, Hordijk JA et al (2019) Long-term developmental effects of withholding parenteral nutrition for 1 week in the pediatric intensive care unit: a 2-year follow-up of the PEPaNIC international, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 7:141–153

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    UK Intensive Care National Audit and Research centre. Key statistics from the Case Mix Programme—adult, general critical care units 2015–2016. https://www.icnarc.org.uk. Accessed Dec 2019

  29. 29.

    Simsic JM, Carpenito KR, Kirchner K et al (2017) Reducing variation in feeding newborns with congenital heart disease. Congenit Heart Dis 12:275–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Furlong-Dillard J, Neary A, Marietta J et al (2018) Evaluating the impact of a feeding protocol in neonates before and after biventricular cardiac surgery. Pediatr Qual Saf 3:e080

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Wakita M, Fukatsu A, Amagai T (2011) Nutrition assessment as a predictor of clinical outcomes for infants with cardiac surgery: using the prognostic nutritional index. Nutr Clin Pract 26:192–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Vermilyea S, Slicker J, El-Chammas K et al (2013) Subjective global nutritional assessment in critically ill children. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 37:659–666

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Valla FV, Ford-Chessel C, Meyer R et al (2015) A training program for anthropometric measurements by a dedicated nutrition support team improves nutritional status assessment of the critically ill child. Pediatr Crit Care Med 16:e82–e88

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Irving SY, Seiple S, Nagle M, Falk S, Mascarenhas M, Srinivasan V (2015) Perceived barriers to anthropometric measurements in critically ill children. Am J Crit Care 24:e99–e107

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Valla FV, Berthiller J, Gaillard-Le-Roux B et al (2018) Faltering growth in the critically ill child: prevalence, risk factors, and impaired outcome. Eur J Pediatr 177:345–353

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Grippa RB, Silva PS, Barbosa E, Bresolin NL, Mehta NM, Moreno YM (2017) Nutritional status as a predictor of duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill children. Nutrition 33:91–95

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Sotoudeh M, Khalili M, Azizian M, Imani B (2016) Prevalence of malnutrition based on under weight inpatients in pediatric intensive care unit. Int J Pharm Technol 8:12333–12340

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bechard LJ, Duggan C, Touger-Decker R et al (2016) Nutritional status based on body mass index is associated with morbidity and mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill children in the PICU. Crit Care Med 44:1530–1537

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Radman M, Mack R, Barnoya J et al (2014) The effect of preoperative nutritional status on postoperative outcomes in children undergoing surgery for congenital heart defects in San Francisco (UCSF) and Guatemala City (UNICAR). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 147:442–450

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Anton-Martin P, Papacostas M, Lee E, Nakonezny PA, Green ML (2018) Underweight status is an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in pediatric patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 42:104–111

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Leite HP, de Lima LF, de Oliveira Iglesias SB, Pacheco JC, de Carvalho WB (2013) Malnutrition may worsen the prognosis of critically ill children with hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 37:335–341

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Zamberlan P, Leone C, Tannuri U, Carvalho WB, Delgado AF (2012) Nutritional risk and anthropometric evaluation in pediatric liver transplantation. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 67:1387–1392

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    de Souza MF, Leite HP, Koch Nogueira PC (2012) Malnutrition as an independent predictor of clinical outcome in critically ill children. Nutrition 28:267–270

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Castillo A, Santiago MJ, Lopez-Herce J et al (2012) Nutritional status and clinical outcome of children on continuous renal replacement therapy: a prospective observational study. BMC Nephrol 13:125

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Numa A, McAweeney J, Williams G, Awad J, Ravindranathan H (2011) Extremes of weight centile are associated with increased risk of mortality in pediatric intensive care. Crit Care 15:R106

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Botran M, Lopez-Herce J, Mencia S et al (2011) Relationship between energy expenditure, nutritional status and clinical severity before starting enteral nutrition in critically ill children. Br J Nutr 105:731–737

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Srinivasan V, Nadkarni VM, Helfaer MA, Carey SM, Berg RA (2010) American Heart Association National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation I Childhood obesity and survival after in-hospital pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Pediatrics 125:e481–e488

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Anderson JB, Beekman RH 3rd, Border WL et al (2009) Lower weight-for-age z score adversely affects hospital length of stay after the bidirectional Glenn procedure in 100 infants with a single ventricle. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 138(397–404):e1

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Eskedal LT, Hagemo PS, Seem E et al (2008) Impaired weight gain predicts risk of late death after surgery for congenital heart defects. Arch Dis Child 93:495–501

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Kelleher DK, Laussen P, Teixeira-Pinto A, Duggan C (2006) Growth and correlates of nutritional status among infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS) after stage 1 Norwood procedure. Nutrition 22:237–244

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Hulst JM, van Goudoever JB, Zimmermann LJ, Tibboel D, Joosten KF (2006) The role of initial monitoring of routine biochemical nutritional markers in critically ill children. J Nutr Biochem 17:57–62

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Fivez T, Hendrickx A, Van Herpe T et al (2016) An analysis of reliability and accuracy of muscle thickness ultrasonography in critically ill children and adults. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 40:944–949

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Briassoulis G, Zavras N, Hatzis T (2001) Malnutrition, nutritional indices, and early enteral feeding in critically ill children. Nutrition 17:548–557

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Davis ET, Xie L, Levenbrown Y (2017) Impact of obesity on outcomes in critically ill children. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607117725043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Ross PA, Newth CJ, Leung D, Wetzel RC, Khemani RG (2016) Obesity and mortality risk in critically ill children. Pediatrics 137:e20152035

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Ward SL, Gildengorin V, Valentine SL et al (2016) Impact of weight extremes on clinical outcomes in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 44:2052–2059

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Goh VL, Wakeham MK, Brazauskas R, Mikhailov TA, Goday PS (2013) Obesity is not associated with increased mortality and morbidity in critically ill children. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 37:102–108

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Abdul Manaf Z, Kassim N, Hamzaid NH, Razali NH (2013) Delivery of enteral nutrition for critically ill children. Nutr Diet 70:120–125

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Ang B, Han WM, Wong JJM, Lee AN, Chan YH, Lee JH (2016) Impact of a nurse-led feeding protocol in a pediatric intensive care unit. Proc Singap Healthc 25:35–42

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Braudis NJ, Curley MA, Beaupre K et al (2009) Enteral feeding algorithm for infants with hypoplastic left heart syndrome poststage I palliation. Pediatr Crit Care Med 10:460–466

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Canarie MF, Barry S, Carroll CL et al (2015) Risk Factors for delayed enteral nutrition in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 16:e283–e289

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Carpenito KR, Prusinski R, Kirchner K et al (2016) Results of a feeding protocol in patients undergoing the hybrid procedure. Pediatr Cardiol 37:852–859

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Lee H, Koh SO, Kim H, Sohn MH, Kim KE, Kim KW (2013) Avoidable causes of delayed enteral nutrition in critically ill children. J Korean Med Sci 28:1055–1059

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Mikhailov TA, Kuhn EM, Manzi J et al (2014) Early enteral nutrition is associated with lower mortality in critically ill children. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 38:459–466

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Tripathi S, Kaur H, Varayil JE, Hurt RT (2015) Effects of enteral nutrition on clinical outcomes among mechanically ventilated and sedated patients in the pediatric intensive care unit. Signa Vitae 10(2):131–148. https://doi.org/10.22514/SV102.122015.8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Mikhailov TA, Gertz SJ, Kuhn EM, Scanlon MC, Rice TB, Goday PS (2018) Early enteral nutrition is associated with significantly lower hospital charges in critically ill children. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 42:920–925

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Bagci S, Keles E, Girgin F et al (2018) Early initiated feeding versus early reached target enteral nutrition in critically ill children: an observational study in pediatric intensive care units in Turkey. J Paediatr Child Health 54:480–486

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Balakrishnan B, Flynn-O'Brien KT, Simpson PM, Dasgupta M, Hanson SJ (2019) Enteral nutrition initiation in children admitted to pediatric intensive care units after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care 30:193–200

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Malakouti A, Sookplung P, Siriussawakul A et al (2012) Nutrition support and deficiencies in children with severe traumatic brain injury. Pediatr Crit Care Med 13:e18–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Fayazi S, Adineh M, Zahraei Fard S, Farokh Payam S, Ahmadie Batvandy Z (2016) Comparing two methods of enteral nutrition in terms of their complications and the time needed to reach goal calorie in children hospitalized in ICU. Int J Pediatr 4:2119–2130

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Gurgueira GL, Leite HP, Taddei JA, de Carvalho WB (2005) Outcomes in a pediatric intensive care unit before and after the implementation of a nutrition support team. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 29:176–185

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Hamilton S, McAleer DM, Ariagno K et al (2014) A stepwise enteral nutrition algorithm for critically ill children helps achieve nutrient delivery goals*. Pediatr Crit Care Med 15:583–589

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Mara J, Gentles E, Alfheeaid HA et al (2014) An evaluation of enteral nutrition practices and nutritional provision in children during the entire length of stay in critical care. BMC Pediatr 14:186

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Meyer R, Harrison S, Sargent S, Ramnarayan P, Habibi P, Labadarios D (2009) The impact of enteral feeding protocols on nutritional support in critically ill children. J Hum Nutr Diet 22:428–436

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Petrillo-Albarano T, Pettignano R, Asfaw M, Easley K (2006) Use of a feeding protocol to improve nutritional support through early, aggressive, enteral nutrition in the pediatric intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med 7:340–344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Yoshimura S, Miyazu M, Yoshizawa S et al (2015) Efficacy of an enteral feeding protocol for providing nutritional support after pediatric cardiac surgery. Anaesth Intensive Care 43:587–593

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Hanekamp MN, Spoel M, Sharman-Koendjbiharie M et al (2005) Gut hormone profiles in critically ill neonates on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 40:175–179

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Hanekamp MN, Spoel M, Sharman-Koendjbiharie I, Peters JW, Albers MJ, Tibboel D (2005) Routine enteral nutrition in neonates on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Pediatr Crit Care Med 6:275–279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Piena M, Albers MJ, Van Haard PM, Gischler S, Tibboel D (1998) Introduction of enteral feeding in neonates on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation after evaluation of intestinal permeability changes. J Pediatr Surg 33:30–34

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Wertheim HF, Albers MJ, Piena-Spoel M, Tibboel D (2001) The incidence of septic complications in newborns on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is not affected by feeding route. J Pediatr Surg 36:1485–1489

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Ong EG, Eaton S, Wade AM et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of glutamine-supplemented versus standard parenteral nutrition in infants with surgical gastrointestinal disease. Br J Surg 99:929–938

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Pettignano R, Heard M, Davis R, Labuz M, Hart M (1998) Total enteral nutrition versus total parenteral nutrition during pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care Med 26:358–363

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    López-Herce J, Mencía S, Sánchez C, Santiago MJ, Bustinza A, Vigil D (2008) Postpyloric enteral nutrition in the critically ill child with shock: a prospective observational study. Nutr J 7:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-2891-7-6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Iannucci GJ, Oster ME, Mahle WT (2013) Necrotising enterocolitis in infants with congenital heart disease: the role of enteral feeds. Cardiol Young 23:553–559

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    King W, Petrillo T, Pettignano R (2004) Enteral nutrition and cardiovascular medications in the pediatric intensive care unit. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 28:334–338

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Panchal AK, Manzi J, Connolly S et al (2016) Safety of enteral feedings in critically ill children receiving vasoactive agents. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 40:236–241

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    del Castillo SL, McCulley ME, Khemani RG et al (2010) Reducing the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates with hypoplastic left heart syndrome with the introduction of an enteral feed protocol. Pediatr Crit Care Med 11:373–377

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Jeffries HE, Wells WJ, Starnes VA, Wetzel RC, Moromisato DY (2006) Gastrointestinal morbidity after Norwood palliation for hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Ann Thorac Surg 81:982–987

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Luce WA, Schwartz RM, Beauseau W et al (2011) Necrotizing enterocolitis in neonates undergoing the hybrid approach to complex congenital heart disease. Pediatr Crit Care Med 12:46–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Manuri L, Morelli S, Agati S et al (2017) Early hybrid approach and enteral feeding algorithm could reduce the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis in neonates with ductus-dependent systemic circulation. Cardiol Young 27:154–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Natarajan G, Reddy Anne S, Aggarwal S (2010) Enteral feeding of neonates with congenital heart disease. Neonatology 98:330–336

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Sánchez C, López-Herce J, Carrillo A, Bustinza A, Sancho L, Vigil D (2006) Transpyloric enteral feeding in the postoperative of cardiac surgery in children. J Pediatr Surg 41:1096–1102

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Sahu MK, Singal A, Menon R et al (2016) Early enteral nutrition therapy in congenital cardiac repair postoperatively: a randomized, controlled pilot study. Ann Card Anaesth 19:653–661

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Typpo KV, Larmonier CB, Deschenes J, Redford D, Kiela PR, Ghishan FK (2015) Clinical characteristics associated with postoperative intestinal epithelial barrier dysfunction in children with congenital heart disease. Pediatr Crit Care Med 16:37–44

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Davey AM, Wagner CL, Cox C, Kendig JW (1994) Feeding premature infants while low umbilical artery catheters are in place: a prospective, randomized trial. J Pediatr 124:795–799

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Barrington KJ (2000) Umbilical artery catheters in the newborn: effects of position of the catheter tip. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD000505

  97. 97.

    Willis L, Thureen P, Kaufman J, Wymore E, Skillman H, da Cruz E (2008) Enteral feeding in prostaglandin-dependent neonates: is it a safe practice? J Pediatr 153:867–869

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Lucron H, Chipaux M, Bosser G et al (2005) [Complications of prostaglandin E1 treatment of congenital heart disease in pediatric medical intensive care]Complications du traitement par prostaglandines E1 des cardiopathies congenitales en reanimation medicale pediatrique. Arch Mal Coeur Vaiss 98:524–530

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Becker KC, Hornik CP, Cotten CM et al (2015) Necrotizing enterocolitis in infants with ductal-dependent congenital heart disease. Am J Perinatol 32:633–638

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Havranek T, Johanboeke P, Madramootoo C, Carver JD (2007) Umbilical artery catheters do not affect intestinal blood flow responses to minimal enteral feedings. J Perinatol 27:375–379

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Larsen BMK, Beggs MR, Leong AY, Kang SH, Persad R, Garcia GG (2018) Can energy intake alter clinical and hospital outcomes in PICU? Clin Nutr ESPEN 24:41–46

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Joosten KF, Verhoeven JJ, Hazelzet JA (1999) Energy expenditure and substrate utilization in mechanically ventilated children. Nutrition 15:444–448

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Dylewski M, Wibbenmeyer L, Bessey PQ et al (2013) Nutrition outcomes. J Burn Care Res 34:371–375

    Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Coss-Bu JA, Jefferson LS, Walding D, David Y, Smith EO, Klish WJ (1998) Resting energy expenditure and nitrogen balance in critically ill pediatric patients on mechanical ventilation. Nutrition 14:649–652

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    de Betue CT, van Waardenburg DA, Deutz NE et al (2011) Increased protein-energy intake promotes anabolism in critically ill infants with viral bronchiolitis: a double-blind randomised controlled trial. Arch Dis Child 96:817–822

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    van Waardenburg DA, de Betue CT, Goudoever JB, Zimmermann LJ, Joosten KF (2009) Critically ill infants benefit from early administration of protein and energy-enriched formula: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Nutr 28:249–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Coss-Bu JA, Klish WJ, Walding D, Stein F, Smith EO, Jefferson LS (2001) Energy metabolism, nitrogen balance, and substrate utilization in critically ill children. Am J Clin Nutr 74:664–669

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Briassoulis G, Tsorva A, Zavras N, Hatzis T (2002) Influence of an aggressive early enteral nutrition protocol on nitrogen balance in critically ill children. J Nutr Biochem 13:560

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Mehta NM, Bechard LJ, Cahill N et al (2012) Nutritional practices and their relationship to clinical outcomes in critically ill children—an international multicenter cohort study*. Crit Care Med 40:2204–2211

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    Mtaweh H, Smith R, Kochanek PM et al (2014) Energy expenditure in children after severe traumatic brain injury. Pediatr Crit Care Med 15:242–249

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    De Wit B, Meyer R, Desai A, Macrae D, Pathan N (2010) Challenge of predicting resting energy expenditure in children undergoing surgery for congenital heart disease. Pediatr Crit Care Med 11:496–501

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Sy J, Gourishankar A, Gordon WE et al (2008) Bicarbonate kinetics and predicted energy expenditure in critically ill children. Am J Clin Nutr 88:340–347

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Framson CM, LeLeiko NS, Dallal GE, Roubenoff R, Snelling LK, Dwyer JT (2007) Energy expenditure in critically ill children. Pediatr Crit Care Med 8:264–267

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Havalad S, Quaid MA, Sapiega V (2006) Energy expenditure in children with severe head injury: lack of agreement between measured and estimated energy expenditure. Nutr Clin Pract 21:175–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    van der Kuip M, de Meer K, Oosterveld MJ, Lafeber HN, Gemke RJ (2004) Simple and accurate assessment of energy expenditure in ventilated pediatric intensive care patients. Clin Nutr 23:657–663

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Vazquez Martinez JL, Martinez-Romillo PD, Diez Sebastian J, Ruza TF (2004) Predicted versus measured energy expenditure by continuous, online indirect calorimetry in ventilated, critically ill children during the early postinjury period. Pediatr Crit Care Med 5:19–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Hardy CM, Dwyer J, Snelling LK, Dallal GE, Adelson JW (2002) Pitfalls in predicting resting energy requirements in critically ill children: a comparison of predictive methods to indirect calorimetry. Nutr Clin Pract 17:182–189

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    White MS, Shepherd RW, McEniery JA (2000) Energy expenditure in 100 ventilated, critically ill children: improving the accuracy of predictive equations. Crit Care Med 28:2307–2312

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Briassoulis G, Venkataraman S, Thompson AE (2000) Energy expenditure in critically ill children. Crit Care Med 28:1166–1172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    Verhoeven JJ, Hazelzet JA, van der Voort E, Joosten KF (1998) Comparison of measured and predicted energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated children. Intensive Care Med 24:464–468

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Jotterand Chaparro C, Moullet C, Taffe P et al (2018) Estimation of resting energy expenditure using predictive equations in critically ill children: results of a systematic review. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 42:976–986

    Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Mehta NM, Smallwood CD, Joosten KF, Hulst JM, Tasker RC, Duggan CP (2015) Accuracy of a simplified equation for energy expenditure based on bedside volumetric carbon dioxide elimination measurement—a two-center study. Clin Nutr 34:151–155

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Meyer R, Kulinskaya E, Briassoulis G et al (2012) The challenge of developing a new predictive formula to estimate energy requirements in ventilated critically ill children. Nutr Clin Pract 27:669–676

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Lopez-Herce Cid J, Sanchez Sanchez C, Mencia Bartolome S, Santiago Lozano MJ, Carrillo Alvarez A, Bellon Cano JM (2007) [Energy expenditure in critically ill children: correlation with clinical characteristics, caloric intake, and predictive equations] Consumo calorico en el nino critico: relacion con las caracteristicas clinicas, el aporte calorico y las formulas teoricas de calculo de las necesidades. An Pediatr (Barc) 66:229–239

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Taylor RM, Cheeseman P, Preedy V, Baker AJ, Grimble G (2003) Can energy expenditure be predicted in critically ill children? Pediatr Crit Care Med 4:176–180

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Verbruggen SC, de Betue CT, Schierbeek H et al (2011) Reducing glucose infusion safely prevents hyperglycemia in post-surgical children. Clin Nutr 30:786–792

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    de Betue CT, Verbruggen SC, Schierbeek H et al (2012) Does a reduced glucose intake prevent hyperglycemia in children early after cardiac surgery? a randomized controlled crossover study. Crit Care 16:R176

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Larsen BM, Goonewardene LA, Joffe AR, Van Aerde JE, Field CJ, Olstad DL, Clandinin MT (2012) Pre-treatment with an intravenous lipid emulsion containing fish oil (eicosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid) decreases inflammatory markers after open-heart surgery in infants: a randomized, controlled trial. Clin Nutr 31:322–329

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Geukers VG, Dijsselhof ME, Jansen NJ et al (2015) The effect of short-term high versus normal protein intake on whole-body protein synthesis and balance in children following cardiac surgery: a randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial. Nutr J 14:72

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Botran M, Lopez-Herce J, Mencia S, Urbano J, Solana MJ, Garcia A (2011) Enteral nutrition in the critically ill child: comparison of standard and protein-enriched diets. J Pediatr 159(27–32):e1

    Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Verbruggen SC, Coss-Bu J, Wu M et al (2011) Current recommended parenteral protein intakes do not support protein synthesis in critically ill septic, insulin-resistant adolescents with tight glucose control. Crit Care Med 39:2518–2525

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Hauschild DB, Oliveira LDA, Farias MS et al (2019) Enteral protein supplementation in critically ill children: a randomized controlled pilot and feasibility study. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 43:281–289

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Kyle UG, Akcan-Arikan A, Silva JC, Goldsworthy M, Shekerdemian LS, Coss-Bu JA (2017) Protein feeding in pediatric acute kidney injury is not associated with a delay in renal recovery. J Ren Nutr 27:8–15

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Wong JJ, Han WM, Sultana R, Loh TF, Lee JH (2017) Nutrition delivery affects outcomes in pediatric acute respiratory distress syndrome. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 41:1007–1013

    Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Mehta NM, Bechard LJ, Zurakowski D, Duggan CP, Heyland DK (2015) Adequate enteral protein intake is inversely associated with 60-d mortality in critically ill children: a multicenter, prospective, cohort study. Am J Clin Nutr 102:199–206

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    Merhar SL, Meinzen-Derr J, Sprague J et al (2015) Safety and tolerability of enteral protein supplementation for infants with brain injury. Nutr Clin Pract 30:546–550

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    de Betue CT, Joosten KF, Deutz NE, Vreugdenhil AC, van Waardenburg DA (2013) Arginine appearance and nitric oxide synthesis in critically ill infants can be increased with a protein-energy-enriched enteral formula. Am J Clin Nutr 98:907–916

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Zhang H, Gu Y, Mi Y, Jin Y, Fu W, Latour JM (2019) High-energy nutrition in pediatric cardiac critical care patients: a randomized controlled trial. Nurs Crit Care 24(2):97–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/nicc.12400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Eveleens RD, Dungen DK, Verbruggen S, Hulst JM, Joosten KFM (2018) Weight improvement with the use of protein and energy enriched nutritional formula in infants with a prolonged PICU stay. J Hum Nutr Diet 32(1):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jhn.12603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Vidigal MV, Leite HP, Nogueira PC (2012) Factors associated with peptide-based formula prescription in a pediatric intensive care unit. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 54:620–623

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    Barbosa E, Moreira EA, Goes JE, Faintuch J (1999) Pilot study with a glutamine-supplemented enteral formula in critically ill infants. Rev Hosp Clin Sao Paulo 54:21–24

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    Briassoulis G, Filippou O, Hatzi E, Papassotiriou I, Hatzis T (2005) Early enteral administration of immunonutrition in critically ill children: results of a blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. Nutrition 21:799–807

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Carcillo JA, Dean JM, Holubkov R et al (2012) The randomized comparative pediatric critical illness stress-induced immune suppression (CRISIS) prevention trial. Pediatr Crit Care Med 13:165–173

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Carcillo JA, Dean JM, Holubkov R et al (2017) Interaction between 2 nutraceutical treatments and host immune status in the pediatric critical illness stress-induced immune suppression comparative effectiveness trial. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 41:1325–1335

    Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Jacobs BR, Nadkarni V, Goldstein B et al (2013) Nutritional immunomodulation in critically ill children with acute lung injury: feasibility and impact on circulating biomarkers. Pediatr Crit Care Med 14:e45–56

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Jordan I, Balaguer M, Esteban ME et al (2016) Glutamine effects on heat shock protein 70 and interleukines 6 and 10: randomized trial of glutamine supplementation versus standard parenteral nutrition in critically ill children. Clin Nutr 35:34–40

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. 147.

    McNally JD, Nama N, O'Hearn K et al (2017) Vitamin D deficiency in critically ill children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 21:287

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Cvijanovich NZ, King JC, Flori HR, Gildengorin G, Vinks AA, Wong HR (2016) Safety and dose escalation study of intravenous zinc supplementation in pediatric critical illness. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 40:860–868

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  149. 149.

    Horn D, Chaboyer W (2003) Gastric feeding in critically ill children: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Crit Care 12:461–468

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Meert KL, Daphtary KM, Metheny NA (2004) Gastric vs small-bowel feeding in critically ill children receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomized controlled trial. Chest 126:872–878

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Sonmez Duzkaya D, Yildiz S (2016) Effect of two different feeding methods on preventing ventilator associated pneumonia in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU): a randomised controlled study. Aust Crit Care 29:139–145

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Horn D, Chaboyer W, Schluter PJ (2004) Gastric residual volumes in critically ill pediatric patients: a comparison of feeding regimens. Aust Crit Care 17(98–100):2–3

    Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Kamat P, Favaloro-Sabatier J, Rogers K, Stockwell JA (2008) Use of methylene blue spectrophotometry to detect subclinical aspiration in enterally fed intubated pediatric patients. Pediatr Crit Care Med 9:299–303

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Tume LN, Bickerdike A, Latten L et al (2017) Routine gastric residual volume measurement and energy target achievement in the PICU: a comparison study. Eur J Pediatr 176:1637–1644

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Gharpure V, Meert KL, Sarnaik AP (2001) Efficacy of erythromycin for postpyloric placement of feeding tubes in critically ill children: a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 25:160–165

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    van Puffelen E, Hulst JM, Vanhorebeek I et al (2018) Outcomes of delaying parenteral nutrition for 1 week vs initiation within 24 hours among undernourished children in pediatric intensive care: a subanalysis of the PEPaNIC randomized clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open 1:e182668

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Kyle UG, Lucas LA, Mackey G et al (2016) Implementation of nutrition support guidelines may affect energy and protein intake in the pediatric intensive care unit. J Acad Nutr Diet 116(844–51):e4

    Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Brown A-M, Forbes ML, Vitale VS, Tirodker UH, Zeller R (2012) Effects of a gastric feeding protocol on efficiency of enteral nutrition in critically ill infants and children. ICAN: Infant Child Adolesc Nutr 2012;4:175–80.

  159. 159.

    Wong JJ, Ong C, Han WM, Lee JH (2014) Protocol-driven enteral nutrition in critically ill children: a systematic review. JPEN J Parenter Enter Nutr 38:29–39

    Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Gentles E, Mara J, Diamantidi K et al (2014) Delivery of enteral nutrition after the introduction of practice guidelines and participation of dietitians in pediatric critical care clinical teams. J Acad Nutr Diet 114(1974–80):e3

    Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Kaufman J, Vichayavilas P, Rannie M et al (2015) Improved nutrition delivery and nutrition status in critically ill children with heart disease. Pediatrics 135:e717–e725

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. 162.

    Geukers V, Neef M, Dijsselhof M, Sauerwein H, Bos A (2012) Effect of a nurse-driven feeding algorithm and the institution of a nutritional support team on energy and macronutrient intake in critically ill children. e-SPEN J 7(1):e35–e40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclnm.2011.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Elise Krabbendam, Sabrina Gunput, Gerdien de Jong and Wichor Bramer, Biomedical Information Specialists of the Medical Library of the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The costs covering the open access publication of this article are covered by ESPNIC.

Funding

No industry funding was provided. The European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) provided logistical support and funding for the meetings.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyvonne N. Tume.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors of these guidelines have reported all potential conflicts or financial disclosures. For a complete overview of the potential conflicts and financial disclosures see below. No funding or contribution from industry was involved in the completion of these recommendations, nor were any industry representatives present at any of the committee meetings. LNT is a member of the NIHR. SCV is supported by Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition (unrestricted research grant). SCV has received speakers’ fees from Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition and Baxter in the past. KJ is supported by Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition (unrestricted research grant). FVV has received speaker fees from Fresenius Kabi and Nutricia (past) and consultant fees from Baxter (current). LVM is supported by a Health Education England/NIHR Clinical Lectureship (ICA-CL-2016-02-001) supported by the National Institute for Health Research. LVM has also received speaker’s fees from Abbott Laboratories and Nutricia in the past. NP is supported by research funding from the National Institute for Health Research. CJC is supported by the Marisa Sophie Foundation and has received travel fees from Nutricia and Baxter (past). CM is supported by the Marisa Sophie Foundation and has received travel fees from Nutricia and Baxter (past).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Lyvonne N. Tume and Frédéric V. Valla: joint first authors.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tume, L.N., Valla, F.V., Joosten, K. et al. Nutritional support for children during critical illness: European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC) metabolism, endocrine and nutrition section position statement and clinical recommendations. Intensive Care Med 46, 411–425 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-019-05922-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Enteral nutrition
  • Parenteral nutrition
  • Child
  • Paediatric
  • Intensive care
  • Guidelines