Current practices in lipid emulsion utilization in the prevention and treatment of intestinal failure–associated liver disease: A survey of pediatric intestinal rehabilitation and transplant centers. Issue 7 (11th June 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Raghu, Vikram K.; Sevilla, Wednesday M. A.; King, Dale E.; Alissa, Feras; Rothenberger, Scott; Smith, Kenneth J.; Horslen, Simon P.; Rudolph, Jeffrey A.
• Is Part Of: JPEN, Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition. Volume 46:Issue 7(2022)
• Page Start: 1585
• Page End: 1592
• Publication Date: 2022-06-11
• Subjects: fatty acids -- life cycle -- lipids -- parenteral nutrition -- pediatrics -- short‐bowel syndrome; Parenteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral feeding -- Periodicals; 615.85484
• DOI: 10.1002/jpen.2413
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0148-6071

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Newer intravenous lipid emulsions (ILEs), such as fish oil–based intravenous lipid emulsions (FO‐ILEs) and soybean oil, medium‐chain triglycerides, olive oil, and fish oil–based intravenous lipid emulsions (SMOF‐ILEs), provide alternatives to soybean oil–based intravenous lipid emulsions (SO‐ILEs). We explored current ILE practice patterns among intestinal rehabilitation and transplant centers. Methods: A survey was developed addressing ILE availability, ILE preference in clinical scenarios, and factors influencing ILE choice. This survey was reviewed locally and by the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Intestinal Rehabilitation Special Interest Group, the Intestinal Rehabilitation and Transplant Association scientific committee, and the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition pediatric intestinal failure section research committee. We recruited providers nationally and internationally from centers with and without intestinal transplant programs. Results: We included 34 complete responses, 29 from the United States. Sixteen centers performed intestinal transplants. All centers had access to SMOF‐ILEs, 85% had access to FO‐ILEs, and 91% had access to SO‐ILEs. In new patients, 85% use SMOF‐ILEs as the first choice ILE. In those with new intestinal failure–associated liver disease (IFALD), FO‐ILE was preferred to SMOF‐ILE (56% vs 38%). In those developing IFALD on SMOF‐ILE, 65% switched to FO‐ILE, whereas 24% remained on SMOF‐ILE. Conclusions: Centers have routine access to alternative ILEs, and these are quickly replacing SO‐ILEs in all circumstances. Future work should focus on how this shift in practice affects outcomes to provide decision support in specific clinical scenarios.