International Safety and Quality of Parenteral Nutrition Summit: Introduction

Abstract This systematic review and meta‐analysis investigated ω‐3 fatty‐acid enriched parenteral nutrition (PN) vs standard (non‐ω‐3 fatty‐acid enriched) PN in adult hospitalized patients (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018110179). We included 49 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with intervention and control groups given ω‐3 fatty acids and standard lipid emulsions, respectively, as part of PN covering ≥70% energy provision. The relative risk (RR) of infection (primary outcome; 24 RCTs) was 40% lower with ω‐3 fatty‐acid enriched PN than standard PN (RR 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49‐0.72; P < 0.00001). Patients given ω‐3 fatty‐acid enriched PN had reduced mean length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (10 RCTs; 1.95 days, 95% CI 0.42‐3.49; P = 0.01) and reduced length of hospital stay (26 RCTs; 2.14 days, 95% CI 1.36‐2.93; P < 0.00001). Risk of sepsis (9 RCTs) was reduced by 56% in those given ω‐3 fatty‐acid enriched PN (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28‐0.70; P = 0.0004). Mortality rate (co‐primary outcome; 20 RCTs) showed a nonsignificant 16% reduction (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65‐1.07; P = 0.15) for the ω‐3 fatty‐acid enriched group. In summary, ω‐3 fatty‐acid enriched PN is beneficial, reducing risk of infection and sepsis by 40% and 56%, respectively, and length of both ICU and hospital stay by about 2 days. Provision of ω‐3‐enriched lipid emulsions should be preferred over standard lipid emulsions in patients with an indication for PN.

Background Parenteral lipid emulsions in critical care are traditionally based on soybean oil (SO) and rich in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids (FAs). Parenteral nutrition (PN) strategies with the aim of reducing omega-6 FAs may potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients published from inception to June 2021, which investigated clinical omega-6 sparing effects. Two independent reviewers extracted bias risk, treatment details, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Random effect meta-analysis was performed. Results 1054 studies were identified in our electronic search, 136 trials were assessed for eligibility and 26 trials with 1733 critically ill patients were included. The median methodologic score was 9 out of 14 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 7, 10). Omega-6 FA sparing PN in comparison with traditional lipid emulsions did not decrease overall mortality (20 studies; risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.76, 1.10; p  = 0.34) but hospital length of stay was substantially reduced (6 studies; weighted mean difference [WMD] − 6.88; 95% CI − 11.27, − 2.49; p  = 0.002). Among the different lipid emulsions, fish oil (FO) containing PN reduced the length of intensive care (8 studies; WMD − 3.53; 95% CI − 6.16, − 0.90; p  = 0.009) and rate of infectious complications (4 studies; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44, 0.95; p  = 0.03). When FO was administered as a stand-alone medication outside PN, potential mortality benefits were observed compared to standard care. Conclusion Overall, these findings highlight distinctive omega-6 sparing effects attributed to PN. Among the different lipid emulsions, FO in combination with PN or as a stand-alone treatment may have the greatest clinical impact. Trial registration PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021259238). Graphical abstract Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03896-3.

Introduction Early data suggest use of a mixed lipid emulsion (LE) with a soybean oil reduction strategy in parenteral nutrition (PN) may improve clinical outcomes. Duke University Hospital made a full switch to a Soybean oil/MCT/Olive/Fish Oil lipid (4-OLE) from pure soybean oil-based LE ( Intralipid , Baxter Inc) in May 2017. Since 4-OLE has limited evidence related to its effects on clinical outcome parameters in US hospitals, evidence for clinical benefits of switching to 4-OLE is needed. Therefore, we examined the clinical utility of a hospital-wide switch to 4-OLE and its effect on patient outcomes. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study among adult patients (> 18 years) requiring PN from 2016 to 2019. Our primary exposure was treatment period (1-year pre-4-OLE switch versus 2-year post). We used multivariable regression models to examine our primary outcomes, the association of treatment period with hospital length of stay (LOS), and secondary outcomes liver function, infections, and ICU LOS. Analyses were stratified into critically ill and entire adult cohort. Results We identified 1200 adults hospitalized patients. 28% of PN patients ( n  = 341) were treated pre-4-OLE switch and 72% post-4-OLE ( n  = 859). In the adult cohort, 4-OLE was associated with shorter hospital LOS (IRR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95–0.99, p  = 0.039). The ICU cohort included 447 subjects, of which 25% ( n  = 110) were treated pre-4-OLE switch and 75% ( n  = 337) were post-switch. ICU patients receiving 4-OLE were associated with shorter hospital LOS (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87–0.93, p  < 0.0001), as well as a shorter ICU LOS (IRR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82–0.99, p  = 0.036). 4-OLE ICU patients also had a significantly lower delta total bilirubin (− 1.6, 95% CI − 2.8 to − 0.2, p  = 0.021) and reduced urinary tract infection (UTI) rates (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26–0.96, p  = 0.038). There were no associations in AST, ALT, or total bilirubin in ICU and all adult patients. Conclusion 4-OLE was successfully implemented and reduced soybean oil LE exposure in a large academic hospital setting. The introduction of 4-OLE was associated with reduced LOS, UTI rates, and mitigated hepatic dysfunction in critically ill patients. Overall, these findings prove a switch to a soybean oil-LE sparing strategy using 4-OLE is feasible and safe and is associated with improved clinical outcomes in adult PN patients.