Yaseen M Arabi1, Abdulaziz S Aldawood1, Hasan M Al-Dorzi1, Hani M Tamim1,2, Samir H Haddad1, Gwynne Jones3, Lauralyn McIntyre3, Othman Solaiman4, Maram H Sakkijha1, Musharaf Sadat1, Shihab Mundekkadan1, Anand Kumar5, Sean M Bagshaw6, Sangeeta Mehta7,8. 1. 1 King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2. 2 Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut Medical Center, Beirut, Lebanon. 3. 3 Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada. 4. 4 King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 5. 5 Section of Critical Care Medicine, Health Sciences Centre, University of Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada. 6. 6 Division of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 7. 7 Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Division of Respirology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; and. 8. 8 Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
RATIONALE: The optimal nutritional strategy for critically ill adults at high nutritional risk is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of permissive underfeeding with full protein intake compared with standard feeding on 90-day mortality in patients with different baseline nutritional risk. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding versus Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Nutritional risk was categorized by the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, with high nutritional risk defined as a score of 5-9 and low nutritional risk as a score of 0-4. Additional analyses were performed by categorizing patients by body mass index, prealbumin, transferrin, phosphate, urinary urea nitrogen, and nitrogen balance. Based on the Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, 378 of 894 (42.3%) patients were categorized as high nutritional risk and 516 of 894 (57.7%) as low nutritional risk. There was no association between feeding strategy and mortality in the two categories; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.27) for high nutritional risk and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.64-1.61) for low nutritional risk (interaction P = 0.53). Findings were similar in analyses using other definitions, with the exception of prealbumin. The association of permissive underfeeding versus standard feeding and 90-day mortality differed when patients were categorized by baseline prealbumin level (≤0.10 g/L: aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31-1.05]; >0.10 and ≤0.15 g/L: aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.42-1.48]; >0.15 g/L: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.80, 3.01]; interaction P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high and low nutritional risk, permissive underfeeding with full protein intake was associated with similar outcomes as standard feeding.
RATIONALE: The optimal nutritional strategy for critically ill adults at high nutritional risk is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of permissive underfeeding with full protein intake compared with standard feeding on 90-day mortality in patients with different baseline nutritional risk. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding versus Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Nutritional risk was categorized by the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, with high nutritional risk defined as a score of 5-9 and low nutritional risk as a score of 0-4. Additional analyses were performed by categorizing patients by body mass index, prealbumin, transferrin, phosphate, urinary ureanitrogen, and nitrogen balance. Based on the Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, 378 of 894 (42.3%) patients were categorized as high nutritional risk and 516 of 894 (57.7%) as low nutritional risk. There was no association between feeding strategy and mortality in the two categories; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.27) for high nutritional risk and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.64-1.61) for low nutritional risk (interaction P = 0.53). Findings were similar in analyses using other definitions, with the exception of prealbumin. The association of permissive underfeeding versus standard feeding and 90-day mortality differed when patients were categorized by baseline prealbumin level (≤0.10 g/L: aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31-1.05]; >0.10 and ≤0.15 g/L: aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.42-1.48]; >0.15 g/L: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.80, 3.01]; interaction P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high and low nutritional risk, permissive underfeeding with full protein intake was associated with similar outcomes as standard feeding.
Authors: Paul R Mouncey; Alvin Richards-Belle; Karen Thomas; David A Harrison; M Zia Sadique; Richard D Grieve; Julie Camsooksai; Robert Darnell; Anthony C Gordon; Doreen Henry; Nicholas Hudson; Alexina J Mason; Michelle Saull; Chris Whitman; J Duncan Young; François Lamontagne; Kathryn M Rowan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Nicola Latronico; Margaret Herridge; Ramona O Hopkins; Derek Angus; Nicholas Hart; Greet Hermans; Theodore Iwashyna; Yaseen Arabi; Giuseppe Citerio; E. Wesley Ely; Jesse Hall; Sangeeta Mehta; Kathleen Puntillo; Johannes Van den Hoeven; Hannah Wunsch; Deborah Cook; Claudia Dos Santos; Gordon Rubenfeld; Jean-Louis Vincent; Greet Van den Berghe; Elie Azoulay; Dale M Needham Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Michael T Vest; Paul Kolm; James Bowen; Jillian Trabulsi; Shannon L Lennon; Mary Shapero; Patty McGraw; James Halbert; Claudine Jurkovitz Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Ivens Augusto Oliveira Souza; Paulo Cesar Ribeiro; Joop Jonckheer; Elisabeth De Waele; Leandro Utino Taniguchi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Mario I Perman; Agustín Ciapponi; Juan Va Franco; Cecilia Loudet; Adriana Crivelli; Virginia Garrote; Gastón Perman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-06-04