Patricia Williams

Abstract Rationale The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared with a lesser amount of calories are unknown. Objectives Our hypotheses were that achieving approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness would increase quality-of-life scores, return to work, and key life activities and reduce death and disability 6 months later. Methods We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3,957 mechanically ventilated critically ill adults allocated to energy-dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition. Measurements and Main Results Participants assigned energy-dense nutrition received more calories (percent recommended energy intake, mean [SD]; energy-dense: 103% [28] vs. usual: 69% [18]). Mortality at Day 180 was similar (560/1,895 [29.6%] vs. 539/1,920 [28.1%]; relative risk 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 0.95–1.16]). At a median (interquartile range) of 185 (182–193) days after randomization, 2,492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality-of-life questionnaire visual analog scale, median [interquartile range]: 75 [60–85]; group difference: 0 [95% confidence interval, 0–0]). Similar numbers of participants returned to work with no difference in hours worked or effectiveness at work (n = 818). There was no observed difference in disability (n = 1,208) or participation in key life activities (n = 705). Conclusions The delivery of approximately 100% compared with 70% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness does not improve quality of life or functional outcomes or increase the number of survivors 6 months later.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend critically ill adults receive more protein than most receive. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a trial to evaluate whether feeding protein to international recommendations would improve outcomes, in which 1 group received protein doses representative of international guideline recommendations (high protein) and the other received doses similar to usual practice. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, blinded, parallel-group, feasibility trial across 6 intensive care units. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults expected to receive enteral nutrition (EN) for ≥2 days were randomized to receive EN containing 63 or 100 g/L protein for ≤28 days. Data are mean (SD) or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: The recruitment rate was 0.35 (0.13) patients per day, with 120 patients randomized and data available for 116 (n = 58 per group). Protein delivery was greater in the high-protein group (1.52 [0.52] vs 0.99 [0.27] grams of protein per kilogram of ideal body weight per day; difference, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38-0.69] g/kg/d protein), with no difference in energy delivery (difference, -26 [95% CI, -190 to 137] kcal/kg/d). There were no between-group differences in the duration of feeding (8.7 [7.3] vs 8.1 [6.3] days), and blinding of the intervention was confirmed. There were no differences in clinical outcomes, including 90-day mortality (14/55 [26%] vs 15/56 [27%]; risk difference, -1.3% [95% CI, -17.7% to 15.0%]). CONCLUSION: Conducting a multicenter blinded trial is feasible to compare protein delivery at international guideline-recommended levels with doses similar to usual care during critical illness.

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent sodium administration in excess of recommended daily requirements has been reported during routine care of critically ill patients. AIM: To determine the amount and sources of sodium administered in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, observational, single-day, point prevalence survey conducted in 46 Australian and New Zealand ICUs on 21 September 2011. All patients present in ICU at 10 am and not receiving an oral diet on the study day were evaluated. Demographic data, ICU admission diagnosis, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score and sources of sodium administration over the study day were recorded. RESULTS: 356 patients (64% male) were enrolled. Mean (SD) age and weight were 58.5 years (18.0 years) and 81.6 kg (24.0 kg), respectively. Mean ICU admission APACHE II score was 20 (SD, 8). Overall median (interquartile range [IQR]) sodium administration was 224.5 mmol (IQR, 144.9-367.6 mmol), or 2.8 mmol/kg (IQR, 1.6-4.7 mmol/kg). Among patients who were on Day 2-10 of their ICU admission on the study day, sodium sources and amounts administered were: i) maintenance or replacement intravenous (IV) infusions, 69.3mmol; 30.9% of all sodium sources; ii) IV fluid boluses, 36.5 mmol; 16.3%; iii) IV drug boluses, 27.6 mmol; 12.3%; iv) enteral nutrition, 26.5 mmol; 11.8%; v) IV drug infusions, 19.3 mmol; 8.6%; vi) IV flushes, 16.6mmol; 7.4%; vii) blood products, 13.5 mmol; 6%; viii) IV antimicrobials, 11.2mmol; 5%; and ix) parenteral nutrition, 4.3 mmol; 1.9%. Factors associated with sodium administration were site (P = 0.04), age (P < 0.001), administered fluid (P = 0.03) and day of ICU stay (P = 0.01) (multiple linear regression). CONCLUSION: This point prevalence study suggests that sodium administration in excess of recommended daily requirements may be common in Australia and New Zealand ICUs. The main sodium source was IV maintenance fluids, followed by fluid boluses and drug boluses.