Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team for nutrition support in a trauma intensive care unit

Eunsuk Oh; Hongjin Shim; Hyon Ju Yon; Jin Sil Moon; Dae Ryong Kang; Ji Young Jang

doi:10.4266/acc.2020.00318

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Acute Crit Care > Volume 35(3); 2020 > Article

Original Article Nutrition Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team for nutrition support in a trauma intensive care unit: Eunsuk Oh^1,2, Hongjin Shim^1,3,4, Hyon Ju Yon^1,5, Jin Sil Moon⁶, Dae Ryong Kang⁶, Ji Young Jang⁷; Acute and Critical Care 2020;35(3):142-148.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2020.00318
Published online: August 19, 2020

¹Nutrition Support Team, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju, Korea

²Dapartment of Pharmacy, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju, Korea

³Department of Surgery, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea

⁴Trauma Center, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju, Korea

⁵Department of Nutrition Services, Wonju Severance Christian Hospital, Wonju, Korea

⁶Department of Biostatistics, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju, Korea

⁷Department of Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Goyang, Korea

Corresponding author Ji Young Jang Department of Surgery, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, 100 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10444, Korea Tel: +82-31-900-0975 Fax: +82-31-900-0138 E-mail: drjangjiyoung@gmail.com

• Received: May 26, 2020 • Revised: July 22, 2020 • Accepted: July 29, 2020

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

6,858 Views
199 Download
11 Web of Science
15 Crossref
12 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
KEY MESSAGES
NOTES
References

Abstract

Background
We evaluated clinical and nutritional outcomes according to multidisciplinary team involvement in nutrition support in a regional trauma intensive care unit (TICU).
Methods
We retrospectively compared the outcomes for 339 patients admitted to the TICU for >5 days depending on nutrition support team (NST) involvement (n=176) and non-NST involvement (n=163).
Results
The mean age and injury severity score (ISS) were 57.3±16.7 years and 18.6±9.7, respectively. Fifty-three patients (15.6%) had shock on admission and 182 (53.7%) underwent surgery during TICU admission. Some patients were admitted to neurosurgery (46%), general surgery (35.4%), and other (18.6%) departments. There were significant differences in the ISS, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, shock on TICU admission, and initial laboratory results. After propensity score matching, the total delivered/required caloric ratio and total delivered/required protein ratio were significantly higher in the NST group than in the non-NST group (calorie: 80.4% vs. 66.7%, P=0.007; protein: 93.1% vs. 68.3%, P<0.001). The NST group had an adequate protein supply more frequently than the non-NST group (protein: 48.0% vs. 25.8%, P=0.002). There was no significant difference in survival, even after adjustment for risk factors using Cox proportional hazard analysis.
Conclusions
The results of our study suggest that multidisciplinary team involvement in nutrition support in TICU patients may improve nutritional, but not clinical, outcomes.
Keywords: injuries; intensive care unit; multidisciplinary team; nutrition support

INTRODUCTION

Malnutrition is identified in approximately 30%–55% of hospitalized patients, and nutritional status is closely related to clinical outcomes for patients [1-3]. In multiple studies, malnutrition has been reported as an important risk factor for mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients [4,5]. Therefore, the National Health Insurance (NHI) of Korea established provisions for the reimbursement of multidisciplinary teams for nutrition support in critically ill patients in 2015, and nutrition support teams (NSTs) now conduct nutritional assessments and nutrition support for patients in each hospital [6]. It has also been reported that nutrition support reduces mortality and the incidences of infectious complications in trauma patients [7-10]. However, a recent multi-center study showed that adequate support of energy and protein was provided for only 50%–60% of trauma patients [11]. Seventeen regional trauma centers were announced by the Korean government in 2012. Currently, 11 trauma centers have been opened and supported by the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare, with each center containing at least 20 beds in the trauma intensive care units (TICUs) [12]. However, since the NST project by the NHI in Korean trauma centers was just recently introduced and its recommendations were not mandatory for the attending physicians, the effectiveness of multidisciplinary teams for NST is still unclear. In addition, literature regarding nutritional issues in injured patients admitted to the TICU is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical and nutritional outcomes according to involvement of a multidisciplinary team for nutrition support in injured patients admitted to the TICU.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patient Selection and Data Collection

In this observational study, the medical records of injured patients (ages > 18 years) who were admitted to the TICU of a regional trauma center in a tertiary university hospital from January 2015 to December 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. The design of this study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Wonju Severance Christian Hospital (IRB No. CR318059), and the need for informed consent was waived due to the retrospective nature of the study. For evaluation of patients’ nutritional outcomes without the effects of early death or transfer to another hospital, patients who were discharged or transferred within 5 days were excluded from our study.

The clinical characteristic data collected included age, sex, injury severity score (ISS), Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score on TICU admission, occurrence of shock at the time of TICU admission, surgery during TICU admission, and admission department. Nutritional information, such as weight, height, body mass index, timing of nutrition initiation, initial nutritional route (parenteral nutrition [PN], tube feeding, oral, or mixed: enteral nutrition [EN] and PN), calculated energy requirement (kcal/day), protein requirement (g/day), and consultation to NST, was also identified. Energy requirements were calculated using either a simplistic formula (25–30 kcal/kg) or the Harris-Benedict equation. Adequate amounts of calories and protein were defined as achievement of 70%–110% of the calculated amounts during TICU admission.

Outcome Evaluations

The primary study end-point was nutritional outcomes, which included total delivered/required caloric ratio (%) and total delivered/required protein ratio (%) during TICU admission, and the rate of adequate calorie and protein supply during TICU admission. The secondary end-point was clinical outcomes, which were duration of TICU stay, duration of hospitalization, ICU mortality rate, and mortality rate.

TICU System

The 20-bed TICU in this study was a semi-closed type. In general, injured patients were admitted to each department (department of trauma surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and cardiothoracic surgery) depending on their main injury site, and patients were only referred to a surgical intensivist if the physician in charge decided that a transfer was necessary.

Nutrition Support Team

Patients were indicated for the NST program if they had hypoalbuminemia (< 3.0 g/dl), were on PN or EN, were admitted to the ICU, or if malnutrition was suspected by the physician. Although there were indications as noted above, multidisciplinary consult services were only conducted if the physician in charge determined that NST consult was necessary. An alert in the order communication system was received after 48 hours from TICU admission if NST consultation was required. The NST provided information about energy and protein targets, nutritional route, and other recommendations associated with patient condition at a multidisciplinary round twice a week. The NST in our hospital consisted of a trauma surgeon (surgical intensivist), a clinical nutritionist, a pharmacist, and a ward nurse. The trauma surgeon assessed patient status, and recommended start timing and the route of nutrition. The clinical nutritionist calculated the amount of nutrition required and the recommended EN prescription. The pharmacist monitored issues with prescribed medications and PN use. Acceptance of these recommendations was decided by the attending physician. All of the NST members were required to attend educational training and were certified in total nutrition therapy for critical professionals.

Statistical Analysis

Continuous variables were presented as the mean value±standard deviation and categorical variables were presented as frequency (percentage). The two groups according to NST consultation were compared using the two-sample t-test, chi-square test, or Fisher’s exact test. To reduce bias in patient selection, propensity score matching was performed. Propensity scores were estimated for each patient using multivariate logistic regression analysis. The covariates included in the calculation were age, sex, occurrence of shock at the time of TICU admission, admission department, ISS, APACHE II score, and length of TICU stay. A one to one matched analysis using nearest-neighbor matching with a caliper distance of 0.05 without replacement was performed based on the estimated propensity score of each patient group. Survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method for comparison between the curves. Multivariable analysis of outcomes was performed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model. Statistical significance was accepted for two-sided P-values of < 0.05. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 software (SAS Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and IBM SPSS ver. 23.0 (IBM Inc., Armonk, NY, USA).

RESULTS

Patient Characteristics

Among 565 injured patients admitted to the TICU, 153 patients who had any missing variable, and 73 patients who died, were discharged, or were transferred to another hospital within 5 days of admission, were excluded from this study. The final enrolled population included 339 patients (Figure 1). The mean age of patients was 57.3 ± 16.7 years and there were 267 males (78.8%). The mean ISS and APACHE II scores were 18.6 ± 9.7 and 13.3±6.9, respectively. Fifty-three patients (15.6%) were in shock at the time of TICU admission, and 182 patients (53.7%) underwent surgery during TICU admission. Nutritional support was initiated 2.4 ± 1.8 days after TICU admission. The initial nutrition was PN in 279 patients (82.3%), oral route in 44 patients (13.6%), and tube feeding in five patients (1.5%). The ICU mortality rate was 8.6% and the overall mortality rate was 9.4%. Consultation with the NST occurred for 176 patients (NST group), and 163 patients did not receive NST consultation (non-NST group) (Table 1).

Comparison between Non-NST group and NST Group

When the non-NST group and NST group were compared, there were significant differences in patient characteristics, including ISS, APACHE II score, occurrence of shock at the time of TICU admission, surgery in the TICU, initial hemoglobin, initial serum albumin, and the initial nutrition route. The ICU mortality rate and overall mortality rate were also significantly higher in the NST group than in the non-NST group (21.5% vs. 6.3% and 14.2% vs. 4.3%, respectively) (Table 1).

Nutritional and Clinical Outcomes between the Non-NST Group and NST Group after Propensity Score Matching

After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in the ISS, APACHE II score, the occurrence of shock at the time of TICU admission, surgery in the TICU, initial hemoglobin, and serum albumin (Table 2). The total delivered/required caloric ratio and total delivered/required protein ratio were significantly higher in the NST group than in the nonNST group (calorie: 80.4% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.007; protein: 93.1% vs. 68.3%, P < 0.001). Adequate protein supply was more common in the NST group than in the non-NST group (48.0% vs. 25.8%, P = 0.002) (Table 3). However, there was no significant difference in survival between the 2 groups (P = 0.740) (Figure 2). After adjustment for age, sex, occurrence of shock, admission department, ISS, and APACHE II score by Cox proportional hazards analysis, there was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

After propensity score matching analysis to adjust for ISS and severity at the time of TICU admission between the NST group and the non-NST group, the clinical characteristics of the two groups were similarly corrected. A multidisciplinary approach using a NST increased the nutrition received, including the total delivered/required caloric and protein ratios, and the rate of adequate calorie supply. This change seemed to be due to the fact that the NST provided adequate information about energy and protein targets, and these recommendations were repeatedly mentioned by the multidisciplinary team. However, there was no improvement in the nutrition route or clinical outcomes, such as the mortality rate and length of hospital stay. This result may have been due to several reasons. First, the NST was not able to change nutrition orders and could only make recommendations regarding nutritional issues, because the NST did not have authority to prescribe. Compliance with recommendations made by the NST had an impact on clinical outcomes. Second, it is difficult to conduct NST rounds more than twice a week with the current reimbursement plan for the NST program. Therefore, it is difficult to continuously check nutrition status, and this appears to have failed to improve clinical outcomes since continuous and detailed nutrition support was difficult.

EN is desired over PN in trauma patients, and it is associated with decreased infections, decreased mechanical ventilation days, and a shorter length of ICU stay [13-16]. However, the results of the present study showed that 82.3% of patients initially received PN and nutrition was initiated 2.4 days after admission on average. This is very different to the results of a recent large, multi-national, multi-institutional study, in which 81% of trauma patients received EN [11]. In Korea, PN is used in a high proportion of surgical patients, and PN is commonly used in patients receiving EN [17]. Reimbursement provided for the NST program by the NHI began on a large scale in 2015 to address these nutritional problems [6]. However, Korean physicians’ perceptions of PN complications in trauma patients are inconsistent, and a consensus for active use of EN has not been reached [18]. As a result, the change in practice appears to be occurring slowly. In our study, approximately 50% of patients underwent surgery during their TICU admission. Preoperative midnight fasting was requested by anesthesiologists for most surgeries, except for emergency surgery before TICU admission. Recent recommendations are that patients can consume a clear liquid diet up until 2 hours before elective surgery in order to minimize perioperative fasting. However, anesthesia has not yet been performed following this policy in the hospital used in our study [19,20]. For this reason, it is thought that patients were initiated on PN, instead of EN, because there was a possibility that they would require an operation during their TICU stay.

Reimbursement for the NST program in Korea, which began in 2015, has had a positive impact on nutritional practice, but it has not completely addressed fundamental nutrition problems [6]. In addition, multidisciplinary rounds are only performed twice a week [6]. As the physicians in charge have a limited understanding of nutrition therapy, compliance with recommendations given by the NST is also low [18]. In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to ensure continuity in nutrition support for patients by organizing the NST round with the multidisciplinary round in the ICU. It is also important to educate physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and nutritionists who manage critically ill patients and to promote NSTs [21].

This study has some limitations. First, it does not show the overall outcome of NST operation in all institutions, because it was performed at a single institution. Second, it was difficult to include information regarding complications, and there was also selection bias between the NST group and the nonNST group, because this was a retrospective study. Third, it is difficult to know whether the recommendations were reflected in the patient’s actual management, since this study did not include information about compliance with NST recommendations by the physicians in charge. Despite these limitations, the results of this study showed the current state of nutrition support in a Korean TICU and provided meaningful information on the effects of the NST project by the NHI on outcomes in trauma patients.

In conclusion, a multidisciplinary team approach for nutrition support significantly increased the nutritional intake of TICU patients. However, additional prospective studies with actual nutrition support or other factors affecting clinical outcomes are needed in order to confirm the impact of NST on clinical outcomes.

KEY MESSAGES

▪ Nutrition support team in critically ill injured patients improved nutritional, but not clinical, outcomes.

▪ In order to solve these problems, it is necessary to ensure continuity in nutrition support for patients by organizing the nutrition support team round with the multidisciplinary round in the intensive care unit.

NOTES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: EO, HS, JYJ. Data curation: EO, HJY, JYJ. Formal analysis: JSM, DRK, JYJ. Methodology: EO, HS, DRK, JYJ. Project administration: HS, JYJ. Visualization: JSM, JYJ. Writing–original draft: EO, JYJ. Writing–review & editing: all authors.

Figure 1.

Patient flowchart. TICU: trauma intensive care unit; NST: nutrition support team.

Figure 2.

Comparison of survival between patients admitted to the trauma intensive care unit in the nutrition support team (NST) group and non-NST group.

Table 1.

Patient characteristics according to NST consultation before propensity score matching

Variable	Total (n=339)	Non-NST (n=163)	NST (n=176)	P-value
Age (yr)	57.3±16.7	56.3±16.9	58.2±16.4	0.297
Male sex	267 (78.8)	38 (23.3)	34 (19.3)	0.369
ISS	18.6±9.7	16.2±9.1	20.8±9.6	<0.001
APACHE II score	13.3±6.9	12.0±6.4	14.6±7.2	<0.001
Shock at the time of TICU admission	53 (15.6)	17 (10.4)	36 (20.5)	0.011
Surgery during TICU admission	182 (53.7)	77 (47.2)	105 (59.7)	0.022
Initial hemoglobin (g/dl)	11.9±2.1	12.3±2.2	11.6±1.9	0.002
Initial serum albumin (g/dl)	3.4±0.7	3.5±0.6	3.3±0.7	0.041
Admission department				0.098
Neurosurgery	156 (46.0)	67 (41.1)	89 (50.6)
General surgery	120 (35.4)	67 (41.1)	53 (30.1)
Other	63 (18.6)	29 (17.8)	34 (19.3)
Weight (kg)	66.4±12.0	66.5±11.8	66.2±12.2	0.821
Height (cm)	166.9±8.8	166.6±8.8	167.0±8.9	0.702
BMI (kg/m²)	23.7±3.3	23.9±3.5	23.6±3.2	0.499
Timing of nutrition start (day)	2.4±1.8	2.4±1.6	2.3±2.1	0.796
Initial nutrition route				<0.001
PN	279 (82.3)	120 (73.6)	159 (90.3)
Oral	44 (13.6)	35 (21.5)	11 (6.3)
Tube feeding	5 (1.5)	1 (0.6)	4 (2.3)
Mixed	11 (3.2)	6 (3.7)	4 (2.3)
Calculated calorie requirement (kcal)	1,516±202	1,534±205	1,501±200	0.143
Calculated protein requirement (g)	74.5±11.7	74.5±10.9	74.6±12.3	0.897
Total delivered/required caloric ratio in TICU (%)	80.4±38.7	64.1±36.3	93.8±35.5	<0.001
Total delivered/required protein ratio in TICU (%)	88.8±51.0	65.5±49.5	108.1±43.7	<0.001
Adequate energy supply	118 (36.9)	39 (27.1)	79 (44.9)	0.001
Adequate protein supply	102 (31.8)	36 (24.8)	66 (37.5)	0.015
Duration of TICU admission (day)	10.4±12.4	5.5±4.8	14.9±15.3	<0.001
Duration of hospitalization (day)	24 (6–86)^a	22.6±15.7	34.5±20.8	<0.001
ICU mortality	29 (8.6)	6 (6.3)	23 (21.5)	0.002
Overall mortality	32 (9.4)	7 (4.3)	25 (14.2)	0.002

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

NST: nutrition support team; ISS: injury severity score; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; TICU: trauma intensive care unit; BMI: body mass index; PN: parenteral nutrition; ICU: intensive care unit.

^a Median (range).

Table 2.

Patient characteristics according to NST consultation after propensity score matching

Variable	Non-NST (n=102)	NST (n=102)	P-value
Age (yr)	56.3±17.2	58.3±16.7	0.395
Male sex	80 (78.4)	79 (77.5)	0.866
ISS	19.0±9.8	20.0±10.2	0.510
APACHE II score	12.9±7.0	12.1±6.6	0.405
Shock at the time of TICU admission	13 (12.8)	9 (8.8)	0.367
Surgery during TICU admission	54 (52.9)	50 (49.0)	0.575
Initial hemoglobin (g/dl)	12.0±2.2	11.8±1.8	0.533
Initial albumin	3.4±0.7	3.5±0.7	0.624
Admission department			0.031
Neurosurgery	45 (44.1)	46 (44.1)
General surgery	46 (45.1)	33 (32.4)
Others	11 (10.8)	24 (23.5)
Weight (kg)	66.7±12.3	66.9±12.7	0.874
Height (cm)	167.3±8.2	167.1±9.2	0.861
BMI (kg/m²)	23.7±3.6	23.9±3.4	0.719
Timing of nutrition start (day)	2.5±1.7	2.4±2.1	0.557
Initial nutrition route			0.003
PN	83 (81.4)	90 (88.2)
Oral	15 (14.7)	9 (8.82)
Tube feeding	0	2 (1.96)
Mixed	4 (3.92)	1 (0.98)
Calculated calorie requirement (kcal)	1,554±213	1,515±212	0.213
Calculated protein requirement (g)	75.1±11.1	75.5±12.7	0.827

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

NST: nutrition support team; ISS: injury severity score; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; TICU: trauma intensive care unit; BMI: body mass index; PN: parenteral nutrition.

Table 3.

Nutritional and clinical outcomes according to NST consultation after propensity score matching

Variable	Non-NST (n=102)	NST (n=102)	P-value
Total delivered/required caloric ratio in TICU (%)	66.7±37.6	80.4±30.1	0.007
Total delivered/required protein ratio in TICU (%)	68.3±54.7	93.1±36.0	<0.001
Adequate calorie supply in TICU	28 (31.8)	44 (43.1)	0.109
Adequate protein supply in TICU	23 (25.8)	49 (48.0)	0.002
Duration of TICU admission (day)	6.6±5.5	8.7±10.3	0.074
Duration of hospitalization (day)	23.4±15.9	29.4±19.8	0.018
ICU mortality	5 (4.9)	8 (7.8)	0.390
Overall mortality	6 (5.9)	9 (8.8)	0.421

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

NST: nutrition support team; TICU: trauma intensive care unit; ICU: intensive care unit.

Table 4.

Mortality according to NST treatment

Variable	Overall mortality
Variable	HR (95% CI)	P-value
Crude model	1.19 (0.42–3.40)	0.740
Adjusted model	2.11 (0.66–6.78)	0.211

Crude model: adjusted for age and sex; Adjusted model: adjusted for age, sex, major shock, ISS, and APACHE II.

NST: nutrition support team; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; ISS: injury severity score; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation.

References

1. Edington J, Boorman J, Durrant ER, Perkins A, Giffin CV, James R, et al. Prevalence of malnutrition on admission to four hospitals in England. The Malnutrition Prevalence Group. Clin Nutr 2000;19:191-5.Article PubMed
2. Bruun LI, Bosaeus I, Bergstad I, Nygaard K. Prevalence of malnutrition in surgical patients: evaluation of nutritional support and documentation. Clin Nutr 1999;18:141-7.Article PubMed
3. Correia MI, Waitzberg DL. The impact of malnutrition on morbidity, mortality, length of hospital stay and costs evaluated through a multivariate model analysis. Clin Nutr 2003;22:235-9.Article PubMed
4. Mogensen KM, Robinson MK, Casey JD, Gunasekera NS, Moromizato T, Rawn JD, et al. Nutritional Status and mortality in the critically ill. Crit Care Med 2015;43:2605-15.Article PubMed
5. Alberda C, Gramlich L, Jones N, Jeejeebhoy K, Day AG, Dhaliwal R, et al. The relationship between nutritional intake and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: results of an international multicenter observational study. Intensive Care Med 2009;35:1728-37.Article PubMed PDF
6. Lee JS, Kang JE, Park SH, Jin HK, Jang SM, Kim SA, et al. Nutrition and clinical outcomes of nutrition support in multidisciplinary team for critically ill patients. Nutr Clin Pract 2018;33:633-9.Article PubMed
7. Doig GS, Heighes PT, Simpson F, Sweetman EA. Early enteral nutrition reduces mortality in trauma patients requiring intensive care: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Injury 2011;42:50-6.Article PubMed
8. Dissanaike S, Pham T, Shalhub S, Warner K, Hennessy L, Moore EE, et al. Effect of immediate enteral feeding on trauma patients with an open abdomen: protection from nosocomial infections. J Am Coll Surg 2008;207:690-7.Article PubMed
9. Wang X, Dong Y, Han X, Qi XQ, Huang CG, Hou LJ. Nutritional support for patients sustaining traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLoS One 2013;8:e58838.Article PubMed PMC
10. Wasiak J, Cleland H, Jeffery R. Early versus delayed enteral nutrition support for burn injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;(3):CD005489. Article PubMed
11. Wade CE, Kozar RA, Dyer CB, Bulger EM, Mourtzakis M, Heyland DK. Evaluation of nutrition deficits in adult and elderly trauma patients. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2015;39:449-55.Article PubMed
12. Jang JY, Shim H, Kwon HY, Chung H, Jung PY, Kim S, et al. Improvement of outcomes in patients with pelvic fractures and hemodynamic instability after the establishment of a Korean regional trauma center. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 2019;45:107-13.Article PubMed PDF
13. Kudsk KA, Croce MA, Fabian TC, Minard G, Tolley EA, Poret HA, et al. Enteral versus parenteral feeding. Effects on septic morbidity after blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. Ann Surg 1992;215:503-11.Article PubMed PMC
14. Moore FA, Feliciano DV, Andrassy RJ, McArdle AH, Booth FV, Morgenstein-Wagner TB, et al. Early enteral feeding, compared with parenteral, reduces postoperative septic complications: the results of a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 1992;216:172-83.Article PubMed PMC
15. Rhee P, Hadjizacharia P, Trankiem C, Chan L, Salim A, Brown C, et al. What happened to total parenteral nutrition? The disappearance of its use in a trauma intensive care unit. J Trauma 2007;63:1215-22.Article PubMed
16. Plurad D, Green D, Inaba K, Belzberg H, Demetriades D, Rhee P. A 6-year review of total parenteral nutrition use and association with late-onset acute respiratory distress syndrome among ventilated trauma victims. Injury 2009;40:511-5.Article PubMed
17. Lee SH, Jang JY, Kim HW, Jung MJ, Lee JG. Effects of early enteral nutrition on patients after emergency gastrointestinal surgery: a propensity score matching analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2014;93:e323.Article PubMed PMC
18. Jeong HS, Teong CH, Kim WJ, Lee AR. Attitudes of medical staff and factors related to nutritional support for patient care in a university hospital. J Clin Nutr 2014;6:37-41.Article PDF
19. Practice guidelines for preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration: application to healthy patients undergoing elective procedures: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists task force on preoperative fasting and the use of pharmacologic agents to reduce the risk of pulmonary aspiration. Anesthesiology 2017;126:376-93.PubMed
20. Smith I, Kranke P, Murat I, Smith A, O’Sullivan G, Søreide E, et al. Perioperative fasting in adults and children: guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011;28:556-69.Article PubMed
21. DeChicco R, Neal T, Guardino JM. Developing an education program for nutrition support teams. Nutr Clin Pract 2010;25:481-9.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Impact of a multidisciplinary collaborative nutritional treatment model in patients who are critically ill with neurological disorders: A randomized controlled trial
Bao-Di Gu, Yun Wang, Rong Ding
Technology and Health Care.2024; 32(3): 1767. CrossRef
Implementation of a multidisciplinary nutritional support team and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19
In-Ae Song, Kyunghwa Lee, Sunghee Lee, Keonhee Kim, Tak Kyu Oh
Clinical Nutrition.2024; 43(2): 315. CrossRef
Interprofessional interventions that impact collaboration and quality of care across inpatient trauma care continuum: A scoping review
Alexandra Lapierre, Mélanie Bérubé, Marianne Giroux, Pier-Alexandre Tardif, Valérie Turcotte, Éric Mercier, Andréane Richard-Denis, David Williamson, Lynne Moore
Injury.2024; 55(11): 111873. CrossRef
Nutrition support teams: Institution, evolution, and innovation
Albert Barrocas, Denise Baird Schwartz, Bruce R. Bistrian, Peggi Guenter, Charles Mueller, Ronni Chernoff, Jeanette M. Hasse
Nutrition in Clinical Practice.2023; 38(1): 10. CrossRef
Multidisciplinary Difficult Airway Team Characteristics, Airway Securement Success, and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Vinciya Pandian, Talha U. Ghazi, Marielle Qiaoshu He, Ergest Isak, Abdulmalik Saleem, Lindsay R. Semler, Emily C. Capellari, Michael J. Brenner
Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngology.2023; 132(8): 938. CrossRef
Nutrition Therapy by Nutrition Support Team: A Comparison of Multi-Chamber Bag and Customized Parenteral Nutrition in Hospitalized Patients
Seunghyun Cheon, Sang-Hyeon Oh, Jung-Tae Kim, Han-Gon Choi, Hyojung Park, Jee-Eun Chung
Nutrients.2023; 15(11): 2531. CrossRef
Consultation pattern changes of parenteral nutrition with a multidisciplinary nutrition support team in a recently opened hospital in Korea: a retrospective cohort study
Kyoung Won Yoon, Hyo Jin Kim, Yujeong Im, Seul Gi Nam, Joo Yeon Lee, Hyo Gee Lee, Joong-Min Park
Annals of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism.2023; 15(2): 57. CrossRef
Lipid emulsion treatment of cardiotoxicity caused by calcium channel blocker and beta-blocker
Ju-Tae Sohn
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.2022; 58: 331. CrossRef
Physician Compliance with Nutrition Support Team Recommendations: Effects on the Outcome of Treatment for Critically Ill Patients
Hyon-Ju Yon, Eun-Suk Oh, Ji Young Jang, Ji Yun Jang, Hongjin Shim
Journal of Acute Care Surgery.2022; 12(1): 1. CrossRef
Nutritional Status of Intensive Care Unit Patients According to the Referral to the Nutrition Support Team and Compliance with the Recommendations
Yunjin Sohn, Taisun Hyun
Korean Journal of Community Nutrition.2022; 27(2): 121. CrossRef
Lipid emulsion dosage used for resuscitation after drug toxicity
Ju-Tae Sohn
The American Journal of Emergency Medicine.2022; 59: 168. CrossRef
Intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: How can mnemonics help?
Biljana Damnjanović, Jovana Stanisavljević, Adi Hadžibegović, Ivan Rović, Đuro Šijan, Nemanja Jovanović, Sanja Ratković, Marija Milenković
Serbian Journal of Anesthesia and Intensive Therapy.2022; 44(5-6): 105. CrossRef
救急・集中治療領域重症患者における栄養管理
信人中西, 穣治小谷
The Japanese Journal of SURGICAL METABOLISM and NUTRITION.2022; 56(6): 229. CrossRef
Urinary Titin N-Fragment as a Biomarker of Muscle Atrophy, Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Weakness, and Possible Application for Post-Intensive Care Syndrome
Nobuto Nakanishi, Rie Tsutsumi, Kanako Hara, Masafumi Matsuo, Hiroshi Sakaue, Jun Oto
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2021; 10(4): 614. CrossRef
Lack of evidence for a nutritional support team in a trauma intensive care unit?
Jae Hwa Cho
Acute and Critical Care.2020; 35(3): 205. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team for nutrition support in a trauma intensive care unit

Acute Crit Care. 2020;35(3):142-148. Published online August 19, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2020.00318

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team for nutrition support in a trauma intensive care unit

Figure 1. Patient flowchart. TICU: trauma intensive care unit; NST: nutrition support team.

Figure 2. Comparison of survival between patients admitted to the trauma intensive care unit in the nutrition support team (NST) group and non-NST group.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary team for nutrition support in a trauma intensive care unit

Variable	Total (n=339)	Non-NST (n=163)	NST (n=176)	P-value
Age (yr)	57.3±16.7	56.3±16.9	58.2±16.4	0.297
Male sex	267 (78.8)	38 (23.3)	34 (19.3)	0.369
ISS	18.6±9.7	16.2±9.1	20.8±9.6	<0.001
APACHE II score	13.3±6.9	12.0±6.4	14.6±7.2	<0.001
Shock at the time of TICU admission	53 (15.6)	17 (10.4)	36 (20.5)	0.011
Surgery during TICU admission	182 (53.7)	77 (47.2)	105 (59.7)	0.022
Initial hemoglobin (g/dl)	11.9±2.1	12.3±2.2	11.6±1.9	0.002
Initial serum albumin (g/dl)	3.4±0.7	3.5±0.6	3.3±0.7	0.041
Admission department				0.098
Neurosurgery	156 (46.0)	67 (41.1)	89 (50.6)
General surgery	120 (35.4)	67 (41.1)	53 (30.1)
Other	63 (18.6)	29 (17.8)	34 (19.3)
Weight (kg)	66.4±12.0	66.5±11.8	66.2±12.2	0.821
Height (cm)	166.9±8.8	166.6±8.8	167.0±8.9	0.702
BMI (kg/m²)	23.7±3.3	23.9±3.5	23.6±3.2	0.499
Timing of nutrition start (day)	2.4±1.8	2.4±1.6	2.3±2.1	0.796
Initial nutrition route				<0.001
PN	279 (82.3)	120 (73.6)	159 (90.3)
Oral	44 (13.6)	35 (21.5)	11 (6.3)
Tube feeding	5 (1.5)	1 (0.6)	4 (2.3)
Mixed	11 (3.2)	6 (3.7)	4 (2.3)
Calculated calorie requirement (kcal)	1,516±202	1,534±205	1,501±200	0.143
Calculated protein requirement (g)	74.5±11.7	74.5±10.9	74.6±12.3	0.897
Total delivered/required caloric ratio in TICU (%)	80.4±38.7	64.1±36.3	93.8±35.5	<0.001
Total delivered/required protein ratio in TICU (%)	88.8±51.0	65.5±49.5	108.1±43.7	<0.001
Adequate energy supply	118 (36.9)	39 (27.1)	79 (44.9)	0.001
Adequate protein supply	102 (31.8)	36 (24.8)	66 (37.5)	0.015
Duration of TICU admission (day)	10.4±12.4	5.5±4.8	14.9±15.3	<0.001
Duration of hospitalization (day)	24 (6–86)^a	22.6±15.7	34.5±20.8	<0.001
ICU mortality	29 (8.6)	6 (6.3)	23 (21.5)	0.002
Overall mortality	32 (9.4)	7 (4.3)	25 (14.2)	0.002

Variable	Non-NST (n=102)	NST (n=102)	P-value
Age (yr)	56.3±17.2	58.3±16.7	0.395
Male sex	80 (78.4)	79 (77.5)	0.866
ISS	19.0±9.8	20.0±10.2	0.510
APACHE II score	12.9±7.0	12.1±6.6	0.405
Shock at the time of TICU admission	13 (12.8)	9 (8.8)	0.367
Surgery during TICU admission	54 (52.9)	50 (49.0)	0.575
Initial hemoglobin (g/dl)	12.0±2.2	11.8±1.8	0.533
Initial albumin	3.4±0.7	3.5±0.7	0.624
Admission department			0.031
Neurosurgery	45 (44.1)	46 (44.1)
General surgery	46 (45.1)	33 (32.4)
Others	11 (10.8)	24 (23.5)
Weight (kg)	66.7±12.3	66.9±12.7	0.874
Height (cm)	167.3±8.2	167.1±9.2	0.861
BMI (kg/m²)	23.7±3.6	23.9±3.4	0.719
Timing of nutrition start (day)	2.5±1.7	2.4±2.1	0.557
Initial nutrition route			0.003
PN	83 (81.4)	90 (88.2)
Oral	15 (14.7)	9 (8.82)
Tube feeding	0	2 (1.96)
Mixed	4 (3.92)	1 (0.98)
Calculated calorie requirement (kcal)	1,554±213	1,515±212	0.213
Calculated protein requirement (g)	75.1±11.1	75.5±12.7	0.827

Variable	Non-NST (n=102)	NST (n=102)	P-value
Total delivered/required caloric ratio in TICU (%)	66.7±37.6	80.4±30.1	0.007
Total delivered/required protein ratio in TICU (%)	68.3±54.7	93.1±36.0	<0.001
Adequate calorie supply in TICU	28 (31.8)	44 (43.1)	0.109
Adequate protein supply in TICU	23 (25.8)	49 (48.0)	0.002
Duration of TICU admission (day)	6.6±5.5	8.7±10.3	0.074
Duration of hospitalization (day)	23.4±15.9	29.4±19.8	0.018
ICU mortality	5 (4.9)	8 (7.8)	0.390
Overall mortality	6 (5.9)	9 (8.8)	0.421

Variable	Overall mortality
Variable	HR (95% CI)	P-value
Crude model	1.19 (0.42–3.40)	0.740
Adjusted model	2.11 (0.66–6.78)	0.211

Table 1. Patient characteristics according to NST consultation before propensity score matching

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

Median (range).

Table 2. Patient characteristics according to NST consultation after propensity score matching

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

NST: nutrition support team; ISS: injury severity score; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; TICU: trauma intensive care unit; BMI: body mass index; PN: parenteral nutrition.

Table 3. Nutritional and clinical outcomes according to NST consultation after propensity score matching

Values are presented as mean±standard deviation or number (%).

NST: nutrition support team; TICU: trauma intensive care unit; ICU: intensive care unit.

Table 4. Mortality according to NST treatment

Crude model: adjusted for age and sex; Adjusted model: adjusted for age, sex, major shock, ISS, and APACHE II.

NST: nutrition support team; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval; ISS: injury severity score; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation.