A Higher-Calorie Refeeding Protocol Does Not Increase Adverse Outcomes in Adult Patients with Eating Disorders

Publication date: Available online 12 April 2018
Source:Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Author(s): Kylie Matthews, Jan Hill, Shane Jeffrey, Susan Patterson, Amanda Davis, Warren Ward, Michelle Palmer, Sandra Capra
BackgroundPatients with eating disorders (EDs) are often considered a high-risk population to refeed. Current research advises using "start low, go slow" refeeding methods (∼1,000 kcal/day, advancing ∼500 kcal/day every 3 to 4 days) in adult patients with severe EDs to prevent the development of refeeding syndrome (RFS), typically characterized by decreases in serum electrolyte levels and fluid shifts.ObjectiveTo compare the incidence of RFS and related outcomes using a low-calorie protocol (LC) (1,000 kcal) or a higher-calorie protocol (HC) (1,500 kcal) in medically compromised adult patients with EDs.DesignThis was a retrospective pre-test–post-test study.Participants/settingOne hundred and nineteen participants with EDs, medically admitted to a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia, between December 2010 and January 2017, were included (LC: n=26, HC: n=93). The HC refeeding protocol was implemented in September 2013.Main outcome measuresDifferences in prevalence of electrolyte disturbances, hypoglycemia, edema, and RFS diagnoses were examined.Statistical analysis performedχ² tests, Kruskal-Wallis H test, analysis of variance, and independent t tests were used to compare data between the two protocols.ResultsDescriptors were similar between groups (LC: 28±9 years, 96% female, 85% with anorexia nervosa, 31% admitted primarily because of clinical symptoms of exacerbated ED vs HC: 27±9 years, 97% female, 84% with anorexia nervosa, 44% admitted primarily because of clinical symptoms of exacerbated ED, P>0.05). Participants refed using the LC protocol had higher incidence rates of hypoglycemia (LC: 31% vs HC: 10%, P=0.012), with no statistical or clinical differences in electrolyte disturbances (LC: 65% vs HC: 45%, P=0.079), edema (LC: 8% vs HC: 6%, P=0.722) or diagnosed RFS (LC: 4% vs HC: 1%, P=0.391).ConclusionsA higher-calorie refeeding protocol appears to be safe, with no differences in rates of electrolyte disturbances or clinically diagnosed RFS and a lower incidence of hypoglycemia. Future research examining higher-calorie intakes, similar to those studied in adolescent patients, may be beneficial.



https://ift.tt/2Hxmofu