Sandra L Peake1, Andrew R Davies1, Adam M Deane1, Kylie Lange1, John L Moran1, Stephanie N O'Connor1, Emma J Ridley1, Patricia J Williams1, Marianne J Chapman1. 1. From the Queen Elizabeth Hospital (SLP, JLM, and PJW), the Royal Adelaide Hospital (AMD, SNO, and MJC), the Discipline of Acute Care Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia; the Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, Monash University, Victoria, Australia (ARD and EJR); and the Centre for Research Excellence in Translating Nutritional Science into Good Health, National Health and Medical Research Council, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia (KL).
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Critically ill patients typically receive ∼60% of estimated calorie requirements. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether the substitution of a 1.5-kcal/mLenteral nutrition solution for a 1.0-kcal/mL solution resulted in greater calorie delivery to critically ill patients and establish the feasibility of conducting a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate the effect of an increased calorie delivery on clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted in 5 Australian intensive care units. One hundred twelve mechanically ventilated patients expected to receive enteral nutrition for ≥2 d were randomly assigned to receive 1.5 (n = 57) or 1.0 (n = 55) kcal/mLenteral nutrition solution at a rate of 1 mL/kg ideal body weight per hour for 10 d. Protein and fiber contents in the 2 solutions were equivalent. RESULTS: The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics (1.5 compared with 1.0 kcal/mL). The mean (±SD) age was 56.4 ± 16.8 compared with 56.5 ± 16.1 y, 74% compared with 75% were men, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 23 ± 9.1 compared with 22 ± 8.9. The groups received similar volumes of enteral nutrition solution [1221 mL/d (95% CI: 1120, 1322 mL/d) compared with 1259 mL/d (95% CI: 1143, 1374 mL/d); P = 0.628], which led to a 46% increase in daily calories in the group given the 1.5-kcal/mL solution [1832 kcal/d (95% CI: 1681, 1984 kcal/d) compared with 1259 kcal/d (95% CI: 1143, 1374 kcal/d); P < 0.001]. The 1.5-kcal/mL solution was not associated with larger gastric residual volumes or diarrhea. In this feasibility study, there was a trend to a reduced 90-d mortality in patients given 1.5 kcal/mL [11 patients (20%) compared with 20 patients (37%); P = 0.057]. CONCLUSIONS: The substitution of a 1.0- with a 1.5-kcal/mLenteral nutrition solution administered at the same rate resulted in a 46% greater calorie delivery without adverse effects. The results support the conduct of a large-scale trial to evaluate the effect of increased calorie delivery on clinically important outcomes in the critically ill.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Critically illpatients typically receive ∼60% of estimated calorie requirements. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine whether the substitution of a 1.5-kcal/mL enteral nutrition solution for a 1.0-kcal/mL solution resulted in greater calorie delivery to critically illpatients and establish the feasibility of conducting a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial to evaluate the effect of an increased calorie delivery on clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter study was conducted in 5 Australian intensive care units. One hundred twelve mechanically ventilated patients expected to receive enteral nutrition for ≥2 d were randomly assigned to receive 1.5 (n = 57) or 1.0 (n = 55) kcal/mL enteral nutrition solution at a rate of 1 mL/kg ideal body weight per hour for 10 d. Protein and fiber contents in the 2 solutions were equivalent. RESULTS: The 2 groups had similar baseline characteristics (1.5 compared with 1.0 kcal/mL). The mean (±SD) age was 56.4 ± 16.8 compared with 56.5 ± 16.1 y, 74% compared with 75% were men, and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 23 ± 9.1 compared with 22 ± 8.9. The groups received similar volumes of enteral nutrition solution [1221 mL/d (95% CI: 1120, 1322 mL/d) compared with 1259 mL/d (95% CI: 1143, 1374 mL/d); P = 0.628], which led to a 46% increase in daily calories in the group given the 1.5-kcal/mL solution [1832 kcal/d (95% CI: 1681, 1984 kcal/d) compared with 1259 kcal/d (95% CI: 1143, 1374 kcal/d); P < 0.001]. The 1.5-kcal/mL solution was not associated with larger gastric residual volumes or diarrhea. In this feasibility study, there was a trend to a reduced 90-d mortality in patients given 1.5 kcal/mL [11 patients (20%) compared with 20 patients (37%); P = 0.057]. CONCLUSIONS: The substitution of a 1.0- with a 1.5-kcal/mL enteral nutrition solution administered at the same rate resulted in a 46% greater calorie delivery without adverse effects. The results support the conduct of a large-scale trial to evaluate the effect of increased calorie delivery on clinically important outcomes in the critically ill.
Authors: Allan Doctor; Jerry Zimmerman; Michael Agus; Surender Rajasekaran; Juliane Bubeck Wardenburg; James Fortenberry; Anne Zajicek; Emma Mairson; Katri Typpo Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Hasan M Al-Dorzi; Abdullah Albarrak; Mazen Ferwana; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Yaseen M Arabi Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-11-04 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Thu An Nguyen; Yasmine Ali Abdelhamid; Liza K Phillips; Leeanne S Chapple; Michael Horowitz; Karen L Jones; Adam M Deane Journal: World J Crit Care Med Date: 2017-02-04