Malnutrition is one of the most frequent metabolic challenges in the population of chronically ill patients. This results in increased administration of nutritional therapy in inpatient settings, which poses the risk of side effects, in particular, the development of refeeding syndrome. If not managed accordingly, it leads to a significant rise in morbidity and mortality. However, despite its importance, evidence-based recommendations on the management of refeeding syndrome are largely lacking, and only a few randomized controlled trials have been conducted. In light of this, the aim of this review is to raise awareness of refeeding syndrome in chronically ill patients by critically reviewing recent literature and providing a short overview as well as diagnosis and treatment algorithms of this underreported metabolic condition. In summary, recent findings suggest undergoing risk assessment and stratification for every patient receiving nutritional therapy. According to this, adaptation of energy and fluid support during the replenishment phase should be implemented in the nutritional therapy for patients at high risk. Additionally, continuous monitoring should take place, and appropriate actions should be initiated when necessary.

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of fully closed-loop (FCL) compared with usual care (UC) glucose control in patients experiencing major abdominal surgery-related stress hyperglycemia. Background: Major abdominal surgery-related stress and periprocedural interventions predispose to perioperative hyperglycemia, both in diabetes and non-diabetes patients. Insulin corrects hyperglycemia effectively, but its safe use remains challenging. Methods: In this two-centre randomized controlled trial, we contrasted subcutaneous FCL with UC glucose management in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery anticipated to experience prolonged hyperglycemia. FCL (CamAPS HX, Dexcom G6, mylife YpsoPump 1.5x) or UC treatment was used from hospital admission to discharge (max 20 d). Glucose control was assessed using continuous glucose monitoring (masked in the UC group). The primary outcome was the proportion of time with sensor glucose values in a target range of 5.6 to 10.0 mmol/L. Results: Thirty-seven surgical patients (54% pancreas, 22% liver, 19% upper gastrointestinal, 5% lower gastrointestinal), of whom 18 received FCL and 19 UC glucose management, were included in the analysis. The mean ± SD percentage time with sensor glucose in the target range was 80.1% ± 10.0% in the FCL and 53.7% ± 19.7% in the UC group (P < 0.001). Mean glucose was 7.5 ± 0.5 mmol/L in the FCL and 9.1 ± 2.4 mmol/L in the UC group (P = 0.015). Time in hypoglycemia (<3.0 mmol/L) was low in either group. No study-related serious adverse events occurred. Conclusions: The FCL approach resulted in significantly better glycemic control compared with UC management, without increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Automated glucose-responsive insulin delivery is a safe and effective strategy to minimize hyperglycemia in complex surgical populations.