Personalization of ICU nutrition is essential to future of critical care. Recommendations from American/European guidelines and practice suggestions incorporating recent literature are presented. Low-dose enteral nutrition (EN) or parenteral nutrition (PN) can be started within 48 h of admission. While EN is preferred route of delivery, new data highlight PN can be given safely without increased risk; thus, when early EN is not feasible, provision of isocaloric PN is effective and results in similar outcomes. Indirect calorimetry (IC) measurement of energy expenditure (EE) is recommended by both European/American guidelines after stabilization post-ICU admission. Below-measured EE (~ 70%) targets should be used during early phase and increased to match EE later in stay. Low-dose protein delivery can be used early (~ D1-2) (< 0.8 g/kg/d) and progressed to ≥ 1.2 g/kg/d as patients stabilize, with consideration of avoiding higher protein in unstable patients and in acute kidney injury not on CRRT. Intermittent-feeding schedules hold promise for further research. Clinicians must be aware of delivered energy/protein and what percentage of targets delivered nutrition represents. Computerized nutrition monitoring systems/platforms have become widely available. In patients at risk of micronutrient/vitamin losses (i.e., CRRT), evaluation of micronutrient levels should be considered post-ICU days 5–7 with repletion of deficiencies where indicated. In future, we hope use of muscle monitors such as ultrasound, CT scan, and/or BIA will be utilized to assess nutrition risk and monitor response to nutrition. Use of specialized anabolic nutrients such as HMB, creatine, and leucine to improve strength/muscle mass is promising in other populations and deserves future study. In post-ICU setting, continued use of IC measurement and other muscle measures should be considered to guide nutrition. Research on using rehabilitation interventions such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to guide post-ICU exercise/rehabilitation prescription and using anabolic agents such as testosterone/oxandrolone to promote post-ICU recovery is needed.

Nutrition therapy in sepsis is challenging and differs from the standard feeding approach in critically ill patients. The dysregulated host response caused by infection induces progressive physiologic alterations, which may limit metabolic capacity by impairing mitochondrial function. Hence, early artificial nutrition should be ramped-up and emphasis laid on the post-acute phase of critical illness. Caloric dosing is ideally guided by indirect calorimetry, and endogenous energy production should be considered. Proteins should initially be delivered at low volume and progressively increased to 1.3 g/kg/day following shock symptoms wane. Both the enteral and parenteral route can be (simultaneously) used to cover caloric and protein targets. Regarding pharmaconutrition, a low dose glutamine seems appropriate in patients receiving parenteral nutrition. Supplementing arginine or selenium is not recommended. High-dose vitamin C administration may offer substantial benefit, but actual evidence is too limited for advocating its routine use in sepsis. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids to modulate metabolic processes can be safely used, but non-inferiority to other intravenous lipid emulsions remains unproven in septic patients. Nutrition stewardship, defined as the whole of interventions to optimize nutritional approach and treatment, should be pursued in all septic patients but may be difficult to accomplish within a context of profoundly altered cellular metabolic processes and organ dysfunction caused by time-bound excessive inflammation and/or immune suppression. This review aims to provide an overview and practical recommendations of all aspects of nutritional therapy in the setting of sepsis.

Evidence is accumulating showing that septic acute kidney injury (AKI) is different from non-septic AKI. Specifically, a large body of research points to apoptotic processes underlying septic AKI. Unravelling the complex and intertwined apoptotic and immuno-inflammatory pathways at the cellular level will undoubtedly create new and exciting perspectives for the future development (e.g., caspase inhibition) or refinement (specific vasopressor use) of therapeutic strategies. Shock complicating sepsis may cause more AKI but also will render treatment of this condition in an hemodynamically unstable patient more difficult. Expert opinion, along with the aggregated results of two recent large randomized trials, favors continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) as preferential treatment for septic AKI (hemodynamically unstable). It is suggested that this approach might decrease the need for subsequent chronic dialysis. Large-scale introduction of citrate as an anticoagulant most likely will change CRRT management in intensive care units (ICU), because it not only significantly increases filter lifespan but also better preserves filter porosity. A possible role of citrate in reducing mortality and morbidity, mainly in surgical ICU patients, remains to be proven. Also, citrate administration in the predilution mode appears to be safe and exempt of relevant side effects, yet still requires rigorous monitoring. Current consensus exists about using a CRRT dose of 25 ml/kg/h in non-septic AKI. However, because patients should not be undertreated, this implies that doses as high as 30 to 35 ml/kg/h must be prescribed to account for eventual treatment interruptions. Awaiting results from large, ongoing trials, 35 ml/kg/h should remain the standard dose in septic AKI, particularly when shock is present. To date, exact timing of CRRT is not well defined. A widely accepted composite definition of timing is needed before an appropriate study challenging this major issue can be launched.

Metabolic alterations in the critically ill have been studied for more than a century, but the heterogeneity of the critically ill patient population, the varying duration and severity of the acute phase of illness, and the many confounding factors have hindered progress in the field. These factors may explain why management of metabolic alterations and related conditions in critically ill patients has for many years been guided by recommendations based essentially on expert opinion. Over the last decade, a number of randomized controlled trials have been conducted, providing us with important population-level evidence that refutes several longstanding paradigms. However, between-patient variation means there is still substantial uncertainty when translating population-level evidence to individuals. A cornerstone of metabolic care is nutrition, for which there is a multifold of published guidelines that agree on many issues but disagree on others. Using a series of nine questions, we provide a review of the latest data in this field and a background to promote efforts to address the need for international consistency in recommendations related to the metabolic care of the critically ill patient. Our purpose is not to replace existing guidelines, but to comment on differences and add perspective.