Nilesh M Mehta1, Lori J Bechard2, David Zurakowski3, Christopher P Duggan2, Daren K Heyland4. 1. Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, and Center for Nutrition, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and nilesh.mehta@childrens.harvard.edu. 2. Center for Nutrition, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; and Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Canada. 4. Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of protein intake on outcomes in pediatric critical illness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between protein intake and 60-d mortality in mechanically ventilated children. DESIGN: In a prospective, multicenter, cohort study that included 59 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) from 15 countries, we enrolled consecutive children (age: 1 mo to 18 y) who were mechanically ventilated for ≥48 h. We recorded the daily and cumulative mean adequacies of energy and protein delivery as a percentage of the prescribed daily goal during the PICU stay ≤10 d. We examined the association of the adequacy of protein delivery with 60-d mortality and determined variables that predicted protein intake adequacy. RESULTS: We enrolled 1245 subjects (44% female) with a median age of 1.7 y (IQR: 0.4, 7.0 y). A total of 985 subjects received enteral nutrition, 354 (36%) of whom received enteral nutrition via the postpyloric route. Mean ± SD prescribed energy and protein goals were 69 ± 28 kcal/kg per day and 1.9 ± 0.7 g/kg per day, respectively. The mean delivery of enteral energy and protein was 36 ± 35% and 37 ± 38%, respectively, of the prescribed goal. The adequacy of enteral protein intake was significantly associated with 60-d mortality (P < 0.001) after adjustment for disease severity, site, PICU days, and energy intake. In relation to mean enteral protein intake <20%, intake ≥60% of the prescribed goal was associated with an OR of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.52; P = 0.003) for 60-d mortality. Early initiation, postpyloric route, shorter interruptions, larger PICU size, and a dedicated dietitian in the PICU were associated with higher enteral protein delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of >60% of the prescribed protein intake is associated with lower odds of mortality in mechanically ventilated children. Optimal prescription and modifiable practices at the bedside might enhance enteral protein delivery in the PICU with a potential for improved outcomes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02354521.
BACKGROUND: The impact of protein intake on outcomes in pediatric critical illness is unclear. OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between protein intake and 60-d mortality in mechanically ventilated children. DESIGN: In a prospective, multicenter, cohort study that included 59 pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) from 15 countries, we enrolled consecutive children (age: 1 mo to 18 y) who were mechanically ventilated for ≥48 h. We recorded the daily and cumulative mean adequacies of energy and protein delivery as a percentage of the prescribed daily goal during the PICU stay ≤10 d. We examined the association of the adequacy of protein delivery with 60-d mortality and determined variables that predicted protein intake adequacy. RESULTS: We enrolled 1245 subjects (44% female) with a median age of 1.7 y (IQR: 0.4, 7.0 y). A total of 985 subjects received enteral nutrition, 354 (36%) of whom received enteral nutrition via the postpyloric route. Mean ± SD prescribed energy and protein goals were 69 ± 28 kcal/kg per day and 1.9 ± 0.7 g/kg per day, respectively. The mean delivery of enteral energy and protein was 36 ± 35% and 37 ± 38%, respectively, of the prescribed goal. The adequacy of enteral protein intake was significantly associated with 60-d mortality (P < 0.001) after adjustment for disease severity, site, PICU days, and energy intake. In relation to mean enteral protein intake <20%, intake ≥60% of the prescribed goal was associated with an OR of 0.14 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.52; P = 0.003) for 60-d mortality. Early initiation, postpyloric route, shorter interruptions, larger PICU size, and a dedicated dietitian in the PICU were associated with higher enteral protein delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of >60% of the prescribed protein intake is associated with lower odds of mortality in mechanically ventilated children. Optimal prescription and modifiable practices at the bedside might enhance enteral protein delivery in the PICU with a potential for improved outcomes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02354521.
Authors: Theresa A Mikhailov; Evelyn M Kuhn; Jennifer Manzi; Melissa Christensen; Maureen Collins; Ann-Marie Brown; Ronald Dechert; Matthew C Scanlon; Martin K Wakeham; Praveen S Goday Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2014-01-08 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Michele M Gottschlich; Marilyn E Jenkins; Theresa Mayes; Jane Khoury; Richard J Kagan; Glenn D Warden Journal: J Burn Care Rehabil Date: 2002 Nov-Dec
Authors: Susan Hamilton; Diane M McAleer; Katelyn Ariagno; Megan Barrett; Nicole Stenquist; Christopher P Duggan; Nilesh M Mehta Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Alysha Keehn; Christina O'Brien; Vera Mazurak; Kim Brunet-Wood; Ari Joffe; Allan de Caen; Bodil Larsen Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Martin Wakeham; Melissa Christensen; Jennifer Manzi; Evelyn M Kuhn; Matthew Scanlon; Praveen S Goday; Theresa A Mikhailov Journal: J Acad Nutr Diet Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 4.910
Authors: Stephen A McClave; Mohamed A Saad; Mark Esterle; Mary Anderson; Alice E Jotautas; Glen A Franklin; Daren K Heyland; Ryan T Hurt Journal: JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Vijay Srinivasan; Natalie R Hasbani; Nilesh M Mehta; Sharon Y Irving; Sarah B Kandil; H Christine Allen; Katri V Typpo; Natalie Z Cvijanovich; E Vincent S Faustino; David Wypij; Michael S D Agus; Vinay M Nadkarni Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.624
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: Lori J Bechard; Christopher Duggan; Riva Touger-Decker; J Scott Parrott; Pamela Rothpletz-Puglia; Laura Byham-Gray; Daren Heyland; Nilesh M Mehta Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ben D Albert; David Zurakowski; Lori J Bechard; Gregory P Priebe; Christopher P Duggan; Daren K Heyland; Nilesh M Mehta Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Emily J Arentson-Lantz; Kinga N Fiebig; Kim J Anderson-Catania; Rachel R Deer; Adam Wacher; Christopher S Fry; Séverine Lamon; Douglas Paddon-Jones Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2020-03-19
Authors: Michael F Canarie; Suzanne Barry; Christopher L Carroll; Amanda Hassinger; Sarah Kandil; Simon Li; Matthew Pinto; Stacey L Valentine; E Vincent S Faustino Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.624