PEP uP Protocol in Surgical Patients

Overview

The main objective of this project is to asses for safety, feasibility and effectiveness of an aggressive feeding protocol, PEP uP (Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol) in increasing protein and energy delivery to critically ill surgical patients. Our hypothesis is that an aggressive feeding protocol, PEP uP will be safe, acceptable, and effectively increase protein and energy delivery to critically ill surgical patients.

Gross underfeeding or iatrogenic malnutrition is prevalent in intensive care units throughout the world. Critically ill patients only receive, on average, 40-50% of their prescribed nutritional requirements. Inadequate provision of nutrition to these patients is associated with increased complications, prolonged length of stay in the ICU and hospital, and increased mortality. There are good data from large scale observational studies and randomized trials that suggest better fed patients have better clinical and economic outcomes and there are ICUs that consistently reach an average of 80-90% nutritional adequacy (amount of nutrition received over amount prescribed) thus it appears to be a feasible goal. The PEP uP protocol (Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol) includes a new, innovative approach that protocolizes an aggressive set of strategies to providing enteral nutrition (EN) and shifts the paradigm from reactionary to proactive followed by de-escalation if nutrition therapy is not needed. The key components of this new PEP uP protocol are the following: 1. Starting feeds at the target rate based on increasing evidence that some patients tolerate starting nutrition at a higher rate of delivery and that slow start ups are not necessary. 2. Allowing "trophic feeds" a low volume of a concentrated feeding solution for 24 hours or longer, designed to maintain gastrointestinal structure and function for those patients who are deemed unsuitable for high volume intragastric feeds. 3. Prescribing semi-elemental feeding solution instead of a standard polymeric solution. These can then be changed to more traditional polymeric solution once the patient is tolerating adequate amounts of nutrition. 4. Prescribing protein supplements at initiation of EN and then discontinue if EN is well tolerated and protein requirement are met through their standard EN. 5. Starting motility agents at the same time EN is started with a re-evaluation in the days following to see if it is necessary. This PEP uP protocol has been previously studied in two published studies enrolling primarily medical patients. In the first study, a pilot before and after trial, the protocol seemed to be feasible, safe, and acceptable to critical care nurses. No incidents compromising patient safety were observed. (Heyland 2010) Rates of vomiting, regurgitation, aspiration, and pneumonia were similar and the PEP uP group received significantly more energy and protein (when they were prescribed to receive full volume as opposed to "trophic"). A subsequent multi-center cluster randomized trial involving low-performing ICUs likewise demonstrated that intervention sites had improvements in energy and protein delivery as well as a decrease in average time from ICU admission to start of enteral nutrition compared to the control group. (Heyland 2013).

Conditions

Interventions

Eligibility

Locations (4)

Outcomes