1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.
-
Upload
june-evans -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
0
Transcript of 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.
![Page 1: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
InInKnowledge Translation: Knowledge Translation:
The Critical Care The Critical Care ExperienceExperience
![Page 2: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Outline of SessionGuidelines for Nutrition Therapy in the ICU : How do they differ? Rupinder Dhaliwal, RD
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
Improving the practices of Nutrition Therapy in the Critically ill Naomi Cahill, RD
WHAT IS BEING DONE?
Bridging the Gap: Effective Dissemination Strategies for Improving Nutrition Practices in the ICUDaren Heyland, MD
HOW TO NARROW THE GAP?
![Page 3: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Questions to be held at the end of the session
1
![Page 4: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Guidelines for Nutrition Therapy in the Guidelines for Nutrition Therapy in the ICU: How do they differ?ICU: How do they differ?
Rupinder Dhaliwal, RD
Team Leader/Project Leader
Clinical Evaluation Research Unit
Critical Care Nutrition
Kingston ON, Canada
1
![Page 5: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Conflict of interest
Co-author of Canadian Clinical Practice
Guidelines
![Page 6: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Clinical practice guidelines are
“systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances.”
Best available evidence with integration of potential benefits, harm, feasibility, cost
Reduce variability in care, improve quality, reduce costs and can improve outcomes
Why bother with guidelines?Why bother with guidelines?
1
![Page 7: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Proliferation of guidelinesProliferation of guidelines
1
![Page 8: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The more guidelines they publish, the more confused I get!
![Page 9: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Compare the content of recently published nutrition guidelines
Differences between the recommendations
Similarities in the recommendations
Highlight the need for harmonization
ObjectivesObjectives
1
![Page 10: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
North American guidelinesNorth American guidelines
1
www.criticalcarenutrition.com
Available Online
![Page 11: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Population Levels of Evidence Grading used Time frames, outcomes Level of transparency between evidence and
recommendation
What differences? What differences?
1
![Page 12: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Differences Differences
Area Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Population Mechanically ventilated critically ill patients
no elective surgery
Critically ill patients needing EN
no burns
Medical and surgical critically ill patients
expected to stay in the ICU > 2-3 days
Level of evidence
RCTs, meta analyses
Level 1 or 2 based on validity of evidence
All levels of evidence
Grade 1-5 based on validity of evidence Minimum n>20
All levels of evidence
Level 1-5 based on validity of evidence
Time Frame 1980-2009 1993-20031993-20091996-2006
unclear
Outcomes clinical outcomes clinical and non clinical outcomes
clinical and non clinical outcomes
![Page 13: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Grading Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Strongest
Weakest
“Strongly recommend”no reservations re: endorsement
(5%)
“Strong”benefits exceed harmhigh quality evidenceanticipated benefits (41%)
“A” supported by at least 2 Level 1 (RCT n > 100)(3%)
“Recommend”supportive evidence but minor uncertainties re: safety/feasibility or costs
“Fair”Same as above but quality of evidence is not as strong
“B” supported by 1 level 1
“Should be considered”Evidence was weak or major uncertainties re: safety/cost/feasibility
“Weak”Suspect quality of evidencelittle clear benefit
“C”Level 2 (RCTs <100)
“Insufficient data”Inadequate data or conflicting evidence(51%)
“Consensus”Expert opinion
“D”At least 2 Level 3(non RCT, contemporaneous controls)
“Insufficient evidence”No pertinent evidenceand harm/risk is ?(37%)
“E”Level 4 (non RCT, historical controls)Level 5 (case series), expert opinion (39%)
![Page 14: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Criteria High Quality CPGs
1
Rigor of development: Provide detailed information on the search strategy, the
inclusion/exclusion criteria, and methods used to formulate the recommendation (reproducible).
Transparent link between evidence, values, and resulting recommendation
External review
Procedure for updating the CPG
AGREE Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:18
![Page 15: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Integration of values
Validity Homogeneity
SafetyFeasibility
Cost
evidence integration of values+
practiceguidelines
![Page 16: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Indirect calorimetry vs. predictive equations
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Insufficient data
1 small RCT burn patients
Strong
Use indirect calorimetry
Non RCTs, no clinical outcomes
Grade E
Use either, caution with equations
Narrative review article
![Page 17: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Dose of enteral nutrition and target range
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Should be considered
Use strategies to optimize EN i.e. goal rate start, 250 mls GRVs, m. agents, small bowel feeding
No threshold
1 RCT and 2 Cluster RCTs
Fair
Give at least 60-70% energy within first week
2 RCTs and 2 non RCTs
Grade C
Provide >50-65% goal calories in first week
Specifics for Obese (Grade E and D)
1 RCT and 1 non RCT
![Page 18: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Gastric Residual Volumes & Motility agents
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
GRVs Should be considered 250 mls
1 RCT and 2 Cluster RCTs
Consensus
250 mls
Grade B
500 mls
4 RCTs
Motility agents Recommendmetoclopromide
Strongmetoclopromide
Grade CMetoclopromideErythromycinOpiod antagonists
![Page 19: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Arginine
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Recommend NOT be used
Meta-analyses of 22 RCTs3 RCTs harm
FairNot be used
11 RCTs2 RCTS harm
Grade A SurgicalGrade B MedicalCautious in severe sepsisVolume use 50-65% goal
earlier meta-analyses showing no benefitRCT showing benefit
Grade A: based on elective surgery patients
![Page 20: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Enteral Glutamine
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Burns: Recommended
Trauma: Should be considered
Other ICU: Insufficient data
9 RCTS
-------- Grade B
Burns, Trauma and mixed ICU patients
1 RCT
![Page 21: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Peptides
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Recommendpolymeric (since no benefit for peptides)
4 RCTs
---------Grade E Use small peptides in diarrhea
1 non RCT
![Page 22: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
zzzz…….
![Page 23: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Fibre
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Insufficient data
6 RCTs
---------Grade E Use soluble fibre3 RCTs
Grade CAvoid soluble and insoluble fibre for bowel ischemia/severe dysmotility2 non RCTs
![Page 24: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Probiotics
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Insufficient data
No benefit in outcomes, potential for harm
12 RCTs
---------Grade CUse in transplant, major abd surgery, severe trauma
Not in necrotizing pancreatitis
5 RCTs
![Page 25: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Intensive Insulin Therapy
Differences: recommendationsDifferences: recommendations
1
Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
RecommendTarget 8.0 mmol/LRange 7-9 mmol/L
Most recent meta- analyses
Strong Medical: 4.4-6.1 mmol/L
Grade BModerate strict control
Grade E6.1-8.3 mmol/L
![Page 26: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Similarities?
![Page 27: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Topic Canadian ADA ASPEN/SCCM
Use of EN over PN
Start EN within 24-48 hr
EN Fish Oils -----
CHO/Fat Insufficient ----- Insufficient
Body position (45) (45)
Small bowel vs. gastric
Continuous vs. other insufficient ---- High risk (D)
PN vs std care Not be used ---- Not for 7 days
Type of IV lipids No soy based ---- No soy based
PN Glutamine ----
Low dose of PN ----
AOX/vits/minerals ----
ADOPT NOW!
![Page 28: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Slight difference in strengthSlight difference in strength
1
Enteral Nutrition over Parenteral NutritionCanadians and ADA: StrongestASPEN/SCCM: second strongest
Feeding ProtocolsCanadians and ASPEN/SCCM: weaker recommendationADA: none for feeding protocol per se, but for GRV : expert opinion
EN plus PNCanadian: recommend NOT be usedASPEN/SCCM: not be started for 7 -10 days (grade C)
Blue DyeASPEN/SCCM : not recommendADA : do not recommend but highest level of evidence
![Page 29: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Differences exist between the guidelines: Populations, levels of evidence, time frames, etc Recommendations: due to interpretation of the evidence, lack of
transparency
Similarities in many of the recommendations
Highlight the need for harmonization across North American Societies
SummarySummary
1
![Page 30: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Similarities should be adopted without hesitation
Differences
Harmonize between societiesDefine critically ill patientTransparency needed (websites)
Practitioner: right recommendation for the right person
ImplicationsImplications
1
![Page 31: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Upcoming in JPEN Upcoming in JPEN
1
Available onlineKnowledge
Translation issue Fall 2010
![Page 32: 1 In Knowledge Translation: The Critical Care Experience.](https://reader034.fdocuments.net/reader034/viewer/2022050714/56649edf5503460f94bef79d/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Ahhh…..Harmonized Guidelines!