Use of a High‐Protein Enteral Nutrition Formula to Increase Protein Delivery to Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized, Blinded, Parallel‐Group, Feasibility Trial

Lee‐anne S. Chapple(Royal Adelaide Hospital), Matthew J. Summers(Royal Adelaide Hospital), Rinaldo Bellomo(The Royal Melbourne Hospital), Marianne J. Chapman(Royal Adelaide Hospital), Andrew R. Davies(Frankston Hospital), Suzie Ferrie(Royal Prince Alfred Hospital), Mark Finnis(Royal Adelaide Hospital), Sally Hurford(Medical Research Institute of New Zealand), Kylie Lange(National Health and Medical Research Council), Lorraine Little(Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society), Stephanie N. O’Connor(Royal Adelaide Hospital), Sandra Peake(Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society), Emma J. Ridley(Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society), Paul J. Young(Medical Research Institute of New Zealand), Patricia Williams(Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society), Adam M. Deane(The Royal Melbourne Hospital)
Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
December 10, 2020
Cited by 55

Abstract

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.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis