The aim of this study was to determine the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) levels at the onset of critical illness and the development of acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ALI/ARDS) in patients with sepsis or trauma. We performed two nested case-control studies of 478 patients with sepsis and trauma with or without ALI/ARDS admitted to the medical, surgical and trauma ICUs of a tertiary-care center. Cases consisted of patients with either sepsis or trauma and ALI/ARDS; controls consisted of equivalent numbers of matched patients with either sepsis or trauma alone. We measured serum 25-OHD levels the morning after ICU admission and used multivariable regression to assess the relationship between 25-OHD and diagnosis of ALI/ARDS during the first four ICU days, controlling for age, gender, diabetes, smoking status and season. 25-OHD levels did not differ between cases with ALI/ARDS and controls in either the sepsis or trauma cohorts. Using a conditional logistic regression model, sepsis patients during the winter season with higher 25-OHD levels were more likely to develop acute lung injury (odds ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval of 1.05 to 2.69, P = 0.03). This association did not hold for the trauma cohort in either season. Sepsis and trauma patients had a lower risk of hospital mortality at higher 25-OHD levels but neither relationship reached significance. Higher one-year mortality after trauma was associated with lower 25-OHD levels (HR 0.50, CI 0.35,0.72 P = 0.001). Serum 25-OHD measured early after admission to intensive care is not associated with the development of acute lung injury, hospital or one-year mortality in critically ill patients with sepsis although lower 25-OHD levels were associated with higher one-year mortality in patients with severe trauma.

Although energy intake might be associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, it remains unclear whether full or trophic feeding is suitable for critically ill patients with high or low nutrition risk. We conducted a prospective study to determine which feeding energy intakes were associated with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients with high or low nutrition risk. This was an investigator-initiated, single center, single blind, randomized controlled trial. Critically ill patients were allocated to either high or low nutrition risk based on their Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill score, and then randomized to receive either the full or the trophic feeding. The feeding procedure was administered for six days. No significant differences were observed in hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortalities, the length of ventilator dependency, or ICU and hospital stay among the four groups. There were no associations between energy and protein intakes and hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortalities in any of the four groups. However, protein intake was positively associated with the length of hospital stay and ventilator dependency in patients with low nutrition risk receiving trophic feeding. Full or trophic feeding in critically ill patients showed no associations with clinical outcomes, regardless of nutrition risk.

The clinical conditions of critically ill patients are highly heterogeneous; therefore, nutrient requirements should be personalized based on the patient’s nutritional status. However, nutritional status is not always considered when evaluating a patient’s nutritional therapy in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study to assess the effect of ICU patients’ nutrition risk status on the association between energy intake and clinical outcomes (i.e., hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality). The nutrition risk of critically ill patients was classified as either high- or low-nutrition risk using the modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill score. There were 559 (75.3%) patients in the high nutrition risk group, while 183 patients were in the low nutrition risk group. Higher mean energy intake was associated with lower hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality rates in patients with high nutrition risk; while there were no significant associations between mean energy intake and clinical outcomes in patients with low nutrition risk. Further examination of the association between amount of energy intake and clinical outcomes showed that patients with high nutrition risk who consumed at least 800 kcal/day had significantly lower hospital, 14-day and 28-day mortality rates. Although patients with low nutrition risk did not benefit from high energy intake, patients with high nutrition risk are suggested to consume at least 800 kcal/day in order to reduce their mortality rate in the medical ICU.

Small bowel enteral nutrition (SBEN) may improve nutrient delivery to critically ill patients intolerant of gastric enteral nutrition. However, the optimal time and target for evaluating SBEN efficacy are unknown. This retrospective cohort study investigates these parameters in 55 critically ill patients at high nutrition risk (modified NUTRIC score ≥ 5). Daily actual energy intake was recorded from 3 days before SBEN initiation until 7 days thereafter. The energy achievement rate (%) was calculated as follows: (actual energy intake/estimated energy requirement) × 100. The optimal time was determined from the day on which energy achievement rate reached >60% post-SBEN. Assessment results were as follows: median APACHE II score, 27; SOFA score, 10.0; modified NUTRIC score, 7; and median time point of SBEN initiation, ICU day 8. The feeding volume, energy and protein intake, and achievement rate (%) of energy and protein intake increased significantly after SBEN (p < 0.001). An energy achievement rate less than 65% 3 days after SBEN was significantly associated with increased mortality after adjusting for confounding factors (odds ratio, 4.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.44–17.07). SBEN improves energy delivery in critically ill patients who are still at high nutrition risk after 1 week of stomach enteral nutrition.

Malnutrition is common in intensive care units (ICU), and volume based feeding protocols have been proposed to increase nutrient delivery. However, the volume based approach compared to trophic feeding has not been proven entirely successful in critically ill patients. Our study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes both before and after the implementation of the feeding protocol, and to also evaluate the effects of total energy delivery on outcomes in these patients. We retrospectively collected all patient data, one year before and after the implementation of the volume-based feeding protocol, in the ICU at Taichung Veterans General Hospital. Daily actual energy intake from enteral nutritional support was recorded from the day of ICU admission until either the 7th day of ICU stay, or the day of discharge from the ICU. The energy achievement rate (%) was calculated as: (actual energy intake/estimated energy requirement) × 100%. Two-hundred fourteen patients were enrolled before the implementation of the volume-based feeding protocol (pre-FP group), while 198 patients were enrolled after the implementation of the volume-based feeding protocol (FP group). Although patients in the FP group had significantly higher actual energy intakes and achievement rates when compared with the patients in the pre-FP group, there was no significant difference in mortality rate between the two groups. Comparing survivors and non-survivors from both groups, an energy achievement rate of less than 65% was associated with an increased mortality rate after adjusting for potential confounders (odds ratio, 1.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.01–2.47). The implementation of the feeding protocol could improve energy intake for critically ill patients, however it had no beneficial effects on reducing the ICU mortality rate. Receiving at least 65% of their energy requirements is the main key point for improving clinical outcomes in patients.

Background: The incidence of stroke after kidney transplantation is poorly understood. Our study aimed to determine the incidence and predictors of stroke as well as mortality from stroke in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). Methods: This retrospective cohort study used the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan to study KTRs (N = 4635), patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD; N = 69,297), and patients from the general population who were chronic kidney disease (CKD)-free and matched by comorbidities (N = 69,297) for the years 2000 through 2010. The risk of stroke was analyzed using univariate and multivariate Cox regression models and compared between study cohorts. Findings: Compared with the ESRD subgroup, KTRs had a significantly lower risk of overall stroke (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.31–0.44), ischemic stroke (aHR = 0.45, 95% CI = 0.37–0.55), and hemorrhagic stroke (aHR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.14–0.29). The risk patterns for each type of stroke in the KTR group were not significantly different than those of the CKD-free control subgroup. The predictors of stroke were age and diabetes in KTRs. All forms of stroke after transplantation independently predicted an increased risk of subsequent mortality, and the strongest risk was related to hemorrhagic events. Interpretation: KTRs had a lower risk of stroke than ESRD patients, but this risk was not significantly different from that of the CKD-free comorbidities-matched general population group. Although stroke was relatively uncommon among cardiovascular events, it predicted unfavorable outcome in KTRs.