Liver failure, both acute and chronic, represents a complex, life-threatening condition frequently requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Nutritional management is a crucial component of supportive therapy, aiming to mitigate catabolism, preserve lean body mass, and support immune and organ function. In acute liver failure (ALF), early nutritional intervention within 24–48 h and individualized energy–protein prescriptions are essential, even in the presence of hepatic encephalopathy. Chronic liver failure (CLF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) are often associated with severe malnutrition, sarcopenia, and systemic inflammation, necessitating tailored nutritional strategies. Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and Royal Free Hospital Global Assessment (RFH-GA) tools are instrumental in identifying nutritional risk. Enteral nutrition (EN) is preferred across all stages, with parenteral nutrition (PN) reserved for contraindications. Special considerations include micronutrient repletion, prevention of refeeding syndrome, and perioperative nutritional support in transplant candidates and recipients. This clinical overview summarizes current evidence and guidelines on ICU nutrition in liver failure, emphasizing a multidisciplinary approach to improve outcomes.

Background: Although extreme heat is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, the relationship between heat-alert-threshold days, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admissions, and post-AMI mortality remains uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the association between temperature-defined heat-alert-threshold days and (i) daily AMI admissions and (ii) cumulative all-cause mortality after hospitalized AMI in Hungary. Methods: We conducted a nationwide registry-based study using data from the Hungarian Myocardial Infarction Registry (HMR). All AMI admissions between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2019 were eligible, with mortality follow-up through 16 June 2021. Heat-alert-threshold days were defined using the temperature criterion applied in the Hungarian national heat-health action plan (daily mean temperature ≥25 °C). AMI admissions were analyzed using adjusted quasi-Poisson regression models and cumulative mortality using stratified Cox proportional hazards models. This operational temperature threshold was used as the exposure definition and does not represent linkage to administrative heat-alert declarations. Results: The cohort included 30,883 AMI events from 29,596 unique patients (mean age, 67.2 [SD 12.8] years; 60.3% male). Patients admitted on heat-alert-threshold days had baseline clinical characteristics similar to those admitted on non-alert days (all standardized mean differences <0.10). Heat-alert-threshold days were associated with fewer recorded AMI admissions during summer (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.90–0.97). In contrast, no association was observed between heat-alert-threshold exposure and subsequent all-cause mortality after AMI hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.96, 95% CI 0.87–1.05). These findings remained consistent across sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: In this nationwide Hungarian registry-based study, temperature-defined heat-alert-threshold days were associated with fewer recorded AMI admissions during summer but not with differences in post-AMI mortality among hospitalized patients. The observed inverse association should not be interpreted as evidence of a protective effect of heat exposure. Alternative explanations include behavioral adaptation, delayed care-seeking, exposure misclassification, residual confounding, and the possibility of unmeasured out-of-hospital cardiovascular events, which were not captured by the registry. Because administrative heat-alert declarations were not linked to the analytic dataset, the findings should be interpreted as associations with temperature-defined heat-alert-threshold days rather than evaluations of the effectiveness of the Hungarian heat-alert system.