Enteral vs. parenteral nutrition in septic shock: are they equivalent?

The current review focuses on recent clinical evidence and updated guideline recommendations on the effects of enteral vs. parenteral nutrition in adult critically ill patients with (septic) shock.

The largest multicenter randomized-controlled trial showed that the route of nutrient supply was unimportant for 28-day and 90-day mortality, infectious morbidity and length of stay in mechanically ventilated patients with shock. The enteral route, however, was associated with lower macronutrient intake and significantly higher frequency of hypoglycemia and moderate-to-severe gastrointestinal complications. Integrating these findings into recent meta-analyses confirmed that the route per se has no effect on mortality and that interactions with (infectious) morbidity are inconsistent or questionable.

The strong paradigm of favoring the enteral over the parenteral route in critically ill patients has been challenged. As a consequence, updated guidelines recommend withholding enteral nutrition in patients with uncontrolled shock. It is still unclear, however, whether parenteral nutrition is advantageous in patients with shock although benefits are conceivable in light of less gastrointestinal complications. Thus far, no guideline has addressed indications for parenteral nutrition in these patients. By considering recent scientific evidence, specific guideline recommendations, and expert opinions, we present a clinical algorithm that may facilitate decision-making when feeding critically ill patients with shock.