Nutrition delivery across hospitalisation in critically ill patients with COVID-19: An observational study of the Australian experience.

BACKGROUND: Data on nutrition delivery over the whole hospital admission in critically ill patients with COVID-19 are scarce, particularly in the Australian setting.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to describe nutrition delivery in critically ill patients admitted to Australian intensive care units (ICUs) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with a focus on post-ICU nutrition practices.

METHODS: A multicentre observational study conducted at nine sites included adult patients with a positive COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to the ICU for >24 h and discharged to an acute ward over a 12-month recruitment period from 1 March 2020. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes. Nutrition practice data from the ICU and weekly in the post-ICU ward (up to week four) included route of feeding, presence of nutrition-impacting symptoms, and nutrition support received.

RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were included (71% male, age: 58 ± 14 years, body mass index: 30±7 kg/m2 ), of whom 41.7% (n = 43) received mechanical ventilation within 14 days of ICU admission. While oral nutrition was received by more patients at any time point in the ICU (n = 93, 91.2% of patients) than enteral nutrition (EN) (n = 43, 42.2%) or parenteral nutrition (PN) (n = 2, 2.0%), EN was delivered for a greater duration of time (69.6% feeding days) than oral and PN (29.7% and 0.7%, respectively). More patients received oral intake than the other modes in the post-ICU ward (n = 95, 95.0%), and 40.0% (n = 38/95) of patients were receiving oral nutrition supplements. In the week after ICU discharge, 51.0% of patients (n = 51) had at least one nutrition-impacting symptom, most commonly a reduced appetite (n = 25; 24.5%) or dysphagia (n = 16; 15.7%).

CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia were more likely to receive oral nutrition than artificial nutrition support at any time point both in the ICU and in the post-ICU ward, whereas EN was provided for a greater duration when it was prescribed. Nutrition-impacting symptoms were common.