Trace elements and vitamins, named together micronutrients (MNs), are essential for human metabolism. Recent research has shown the importance of MNs in common pathologies, with significant deficiencies impacting the outcome. This guideline aims to provide information for daily clinical nutrition practice regarding assessment of MN status, monitoring, and prescription. It proposes a consensus terminology, since many words are used imprecisely, resulting in confusion. This is particularly true for the words "deficiency", "repletion", "complement", and "supplement". The expert group attempted to apply the 2015 standard operating procedures (SOP) for ESPEN which focuses on disease. However, this approach could not be applied due to the multiple diseases requiring clinical nutrition resulting in one text for each MN, rather than for diseases. An extensive search of the literature was conducted in the databases Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and CINAHL. The search focused on physiological data, historical evidence (published before PubMed release in 1996), and observational and/or randomized trials. For each MN, the main functions, optimal analytical methods, impact of inflammation, potential toxicity, and provision during enteral or parenteral nutrition were addressed. The SOP wording was applied for strength of recommendations. There was a limited number of interventional trials, preventing meta-analysis and leading to a low level of evidence. The recommendations underwent a consensus process, which resulted in a percentage of agreement (%): strong consensus required of >90% of votes. Altogether the guideline proposes sets of recommendations for 26 MNs, resulting in 170 single recommendations. Critical MNs were identified with deficiencies being present in numerous acute and chronic diseases. Monitoring and management strategies are proposed. This guideline should enable addressing suboptimal and deficient status of a bundle of MNs in at-risk diseases. In particular, it offers practical advice on MN provision and monitoring during nutritional support.

The results of recent large-scale clinical trials have led us to review our understanding of the metabolic response to stress and the most appropriate means of managing nutrition in critically ill patients. This review presents an update in this field, identifying and discussing a number of areas for which consensus has been reached and others where controversy remains and presenting areas for future research. We discuss optimal calorie and protein intake, the incidence and management of re-feeding syndrome, the role of gastric residual volume monitoring, the place of supplemental parenteral nutrition when enteral feeding is deemed insufficient, the role of indirect calorimetry, and potential indications for several pharmaconutrients.

Indirect calorimetry (IC) is considered as the gold standard to determine energy expenditure, by measuring pulmonary gas exchanges. It is a non-invasive technique that allows clinicians to personalize the prescription of nutrition support to the metabolic needs and promote a better clinical outcome. Recent technical developments allow accurate and easy IC measurements in spontaneously breathing patients as well as in those on mechanical ventilation. The implementation of IC in clinical routine should be promoted in order to optimize the cost–benefit balance of nutrition therapy. This review aims at summarizing the latest innovations of IC as well as the clinical indications, benefits, and limitations.

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is frequent in the critically ill but can be overlooked as a result of the lack of standardization of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We aimed to develop a research agenda for GI dysfunction for future research. We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on a broad range of subtopics from a specific viewpoint of GI dysfunction, highlighting the remaining areas of uncertainty and suggesting future studies. Methods: This systematic scoping review and research agenda was conducted following successive steps: (1) identify clinically important subtopics within the field of GI function which warrant further research; (2) systematically review the literature for each subtopic using PubMed, CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; (3) summarize evidence for each subtopic; (4) identify areas of uncertainty; (5) formulate and refine study proposals that address these subtopics; and (6) prioritize study proposals via sequential voting rounds. Results: Five major themes were identified: (1) monitoring, (2) associations between GI function and outcome, (3) GI function and nutrition, (4) management of GI dysfunction and (5) pathophysiological mechanisms. Searches on 17 subtopics were performed and evidence summarized. Several areas of uncertainty were identified, six of them needing consensus process. Study proposals ranked among the first ten included: prevention and management of diarrhoea; management of upper and lower feeding intolerance, including indications for post-pyloric feeding and opioid antagonists; acute gastrointestinal injury grading as a bedside tool; the role of intra-abdominal hypertension in the development and monitoring of GI dysfunction and in the development of non-occlusive mesenteric ischaemia; and the effect of proton pump inhibitors on the microbiome in critical illness. Conclusions: Current evidence on GI dysfunction is scarce, partially due to the lack of precise definitions. The use of core sets of monitoring and outcomes are required to improve the consistency of future studies. We propose several areas for consensus process and outline future study projects.