Children in intensive care recover faster with little to no nutrition

ScienceDaily

Critically ill children are artificially fed soon after their arrival in intensive care. This common practice is based on the assumption that it will help them recover more quickly. An international study coordinated at KU Leuven, Belgium, has now disproven this theory. The study shows that receiving little to no nutrition during the first week in intensive care makes children recover faster.

Critically ill children in intensive care are unable to eat independently. The current standard of care for such children is based mostly on the assumption that they need to eat to regain their strength. Therefore, the method that is applied worldwide is to artificially feed these children during the first days of their stay in intensive care. This artificial nutrition is meant to strengthen their muscles, prevent complications, and speed up their recovery. The artificial nutrition is infused directly into the bloodstream.

An international team of researchers from University Hospitals Leuven (Belgium), Sophia Children’s Hospital Rotterdam (The Netherlands), and Stollery Children’s Hospital Edmonton (Canada) has now challenged the validity of this common practice. They conducted a randomized controlled trial that involved 1,440 critically ill children. The researchers examined whether fasting or receiving very small amounts of feeding during the first week in the pediatric intensive care unit was better for the children than full feeding through an IV.

Read the full commentary here

Read the original research here

Third International Consensus Definition for Sepsis and Septic Shock

JAMA Volume 315 Number 8 23rd February 2016 has a theme of “Evolving Issues in Critical Care and Sepsis” focusing on the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock.

In addition to the consensus definitions article itself there are supporting articles on assessment of clinical criteria for sepsis and septic shock.

The contents page including abstracts of this issue can accessed via this link.  A physical copy of this journal is available in the Health care library on Level D of Rotherham Hospital.

Latest Issue Intensive and Critical Nursing of April 2016 Volume 33

The latest issue of Intensive Care Medicine’s content page can be accessed via this link

This is a special issue on “Innovations and insights into end of life in critical care” including the following articles; “Nurses’ experience of caring for the suddenly bereaved in adult and critical care settings, and the provision of person centred care: a qualitative study” and “Exploring family experiences of nursing aspects of end of life care in the ICU: a qualitative study”.

To access the full text of the articles freely from the journals homepage website a personal subscription is required.  Alternatively individual articles can be ordered via the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust Library and Knowledge Service.

Latest Issue of Intensive Care Medicine April 2016 Volume 42 Issue 4

The most recent issue of Intensive Care Medicine’s content page can be accessed via this link

Articles that are included in this issue include “Antithrombin III for critically ill patients: a systematic review with meta analysis and trial sequential analysis” and “Higher versus lower blood pressure targets for vasopressor therapy in shock: a multicentre pilot randomized controlled trial”.

To access the full text of the articles freely from the journals homepage website a personal subscription is required.  Alternatively individual articles can be ordered via the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust Library and Knowledge Service.

Efficacy and safety of procalcitonin guidance in reducing the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a randomised, controlled, open-label trial

The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Median consumption of antibiotics was 7.5 daily defined doses (DDD) in the procalcitonin-guided group v 9.3 DDD in the standard-of-care group (absolute difference 2.69, p<0.0001), and median duration of treatment was 5 v 7 days respectively (absolute difference 1.22, p<0.0001).