Literature DB >> 30360760

High protein intake during the early phase of critical illness: yes or no?

Jean-Charles Preiser1.   

Abstract

The rationale for the provision of nitrogen from proteins given via the enteral route or from intravenous amino acids is to boost the synthesis of muscle proteins, and thereby to limit the severity of intensive care unit-acquired weakness by the prevention of muscle loss. However, the optimal timing for supplemental nitrogen provision is a matter of debate and controversy. Indeed, consistent data from retrospective studies support an association between high early protein intakes and better outcomes, while recent post-hoc findings from prospective studies raise safety concerns. This pro-con paper details the arguments of both sides and highlights the need for large-scale prospective studies assessing the safety and efficacy of different levels of protein intake in combination with physical activity and summarizes the currently recruiting clinical trials.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Amino acids; Anabolic resistance; Enteral; Insulin resistance; Medical nutrition; Muscle weakness; Nitrogen; Parenteral

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30360760      PMCID: PMC6203200          DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-2196-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care        ISSN: 1364-8535            Impact factor:   9.097


Introduction

A large consensus supports the provision of high protein intakes during the late phase of critical illness, e.g., during recovery when the ability to increase the synthesis of muscle proteins from the pool of circulating amino acids increases [1, 2]. However, controversial views are expressed regarding the amount of proteins to be given during the early phase of critical illness, when muscle protein breakdown outweighs muscle synthesis as a result of the resistance to anabolic stimuli [3, 4]. The proportion of nitrogen losses to be compensated by protein intake in the critically ill is a matter of debate, as reflected by recommendations cited in the most recently published guidelines: 1.2–2.5 g/kg of protein per day [5, 6] and the provision of an amount of protein lower than nitrogen losses [1, 4], in agreement with the “Baby stomach” concept [7]. These discrepant views based on experts’ opinions reflect the paucity of data from adequately powered clinical studies assessing the effects of different amounts of proteins on relevant endpoints [8]. Meanwhile, industrial companies recently started to market nutritional formulas containing high amounts of proteins or amino acids and promoted their use early during the course of critical illness, following experts’ opinions mainly based on associations between high nitrogen intakes and better outcomes and on biochemical arguments. The marketing of these solutions is possible as the legal standards do not require the same sequence of testing as for a new drug, i.e., phase I clinical trials to check the safety, phase II clinical trials to assess the efficacy, and phase III clinical trials to compare the new treatment with the current standard of care. In the field of nutrition, this sequence is usually not followed; as a result the issue of safety may have been overlooked [9]. Nonetheless, the issues raised by the three phases of clinical testing are relevant for nutritional solutions as well as for any new therapeutic modality. The community of clinicians is then left with conflicting arguments either supporting the use of high protein solutions or cautioning against this practice (Fig. 1). This manuscript intends to summarize the arguments supporting both sides and the current clinical research.
Fig. 1

The arguments in favor and against high protein intake during the early phase of critical illness. AA amino acid

The arguments in favor and against high protein intake during the early phase of critical illness. AA amino acid

High nitrogen intake during the early phase of critical illness: the pros

The renewed enthusiasm for high protein intake results mainly from attention paid to ICU-acquired muscle weakness (ICU-AW). Indeed, the importance of ICU-AW in the outcome of critically ill patients has been underlined by the description of long-term physical impairments and disabilities impairing the quality of life of survivors and increasing healthcare-related costs. The time course of muscle wasting is characterized by an initial abrupt drop in muscle mass and function followed by a slow, progressive recovery [10-13]. Recently, decreased mitochondrial biogenesis and dysregulated lipid oxidation have been reported as contributors to compromised skeletal muscle bioenergetic status [14]. Clinically, in addition to a decrease in functional autonomy and quality of life, this prolonged muscle weakness represents a huge burden for society as a high proportion of patients who required an ICU stay lasting several days are unable to return to work or even to home [15]. The prevention of ICU-AW requires a multi-modal “bundle” approach, including the avoidance of sedation, early mobilization, and ambulation. The inclusion of high protein intakes in this bundle of measures appears logical as an adjunctive measure to limit the loss of muscle mass and function by boosting the synthesis of muscle proteins. High protein intake is expected to stimulate new protein synthesis, thereby preserving muscle mass [6]. The combination of physical activity, including active and passive mobilization, with high protein nutritional formulas or supplemental intravenous amino acids was suggested as a “must” for physical rehabilitation. Research in this area was even ranked as the number one priority by a group of experts [16]. Compelling retrospective data on large cohorts of patients support these expectations, as improved survival was observed in patients who received the highest amounts of protein, regardless of their physical activity [17-20]. The results of a recent clinical prospective study confirm that it is possible to increase the circulating pool of amino acids with an enteral solution containing high amounts of proteins [21], in spite of high splanchnic extraction of some amino acids [22]. In other interventional studies, intravenous infusion of amino acids was found to be safe in patients at risk of acute renal failure [23] and transiently improved muscle function [24]. Improved 90-day survival was even found in a post-hoc analysis in the subset of patients with normal renal function [25]. Parallel to this quantitative approach, the qualitative aspects of proteins can also represent a promising area of clinical research. For instance, whey proteins could increase muscle synthesis more efficiently than soy or casein-based solutions as a result of their higher digestibility, their higher content in leucine, and their insulinotropic properties [26, 27]. Likewise, the effects of semi-elemental or elemental solutions should be re-considered as a means to improve digestibility and protein availability during enteral nutrition [28].

High nitrogen intake during the early phase of critical illness: the cons

On the “con” side of high protein intake, no clinical benefit has been reported from interventional studies comparing solutions containing high amounts of nutrients, including proteins, with standard amounts [29-32]. However, in contrast to a potential benefit on muscle protein synthesis, the issue of the safety of high nitrogen intake during the acute phase of critical illness is an emerging concern. Indeed, a preplanned post-hoc analysis of the PEPaNIC study [33] that evaluated the effects of withholding parenteral nutrition in critically ill children suggests a linear positive correlation between the amount of amino acids provided and poorer outcome in the children randomized to the early parenteral nutrition group, until day 4 after admission [34] . The underlying mechanisms are not fully understood and are currently being investigated. Besides increased urea generation reported in the EAT-ICU (Early Goal-Directed Nutrition in ICU Patients) trial [35], increased production of glucagon leading to further oxidation of amino acids has also been reported [36]. Teleologically, muscle wasting could be considered a desirable consequence of adaptive anabolic resistance and lasts a few hours or days after injury [37]. The inability to respond to anabolic stimuli during the acute phase can be considered as a component of an adaptive response designed to provide substrates for gluconeogenesis in order to meet the requirements of vital organs and systems, an event known as auto-cannibalization or auto-cannibalism [3]. In this scenario, the loss of muscle would serve to supply gluconeogenetic organs. Likewise, the ability of muscles to build myofibrils will be limited and the provision of high amounts of amino acids will not attenuate the muscle wasting and could even amplify the degradation of amino acids.

Conclusions

The risk-to-benefit ratio of the provision of high amounts of proteins or amino acids during the early phase of critical illness is largely unknown. Some aspects have been investigated, while others are still unexplored. Importantly, the optimal combination of proteins and physical activity is unknown [38]. This is a key issue when early physical activity is feasible and probably beneficial. Of note, the needs and protein metabolism of elderly and/or obese patients can differ from those of the overall ICU population [6, 39, 40]. Hopefully, some of the pending issues could be answered by some of the ongoing trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov (Table 1). Most of the currently recruiting studies are prospective randomized controlled trials. The inclusion criteria studies are highly variable, even though an anticipated long stay and the requirement for mechanical ventilation are mandatory in most trials. The primary outcomes tend to focus on physical function in several studies, while all-cause mortality is less commonly used as a primary outcome. A wide range of interventions are being tested and compared to the standards of care, from supplemental proteins (1.5–3.0 g/kg/day) alone to combination with standardized physical activity.
Table 1

Ongoing studies currently recruiting adult patients (source: Clinicaltrials.gov – Jul 23, 2018)

NCT numberDesignRegionInclusion criteriaPrimary outcomeSecondary outcomesInterventionComparatorPlanned sample size
01833624Open-label PRCTFrance• Traumatic brain injury• Non-traumatic brain injury: stroke, intracranial and/or subarachnoid hemorrhage, subdural and/or extradural hematoma• Expected duration of mechanical ventilation > 48 hNutritional efficacyMorbidity and mortalitySmall-peptide enteral feeding formulaWhole-protein formula206
02509520PRCTUSA• Age ≥ 45 years• Respiratory insufficiency requiring mechanical ventilation• ICU presentation < 6 days• All four limbs intact and mobile• Eligible for and able to participate in physical therapy• Pre-admission Barthel Index > 70-Muscle mass-Global body strength-Mobility status-Short physical performance battery-Time to weaning-ICU/hospital length of stay-Discharge disposition-Weaning successFunctional strength and cardiopulmonary endurance trainingMPR and high protein supplement goal of 1.6 g/kg/day protein“No intervention”: MPR“Active comparator”: MPR and high protein supplement60
02106624PRCTChina• Need mechanical ventilation for more than 2 days• Mean blood pressure more than 60 mmHg• Predicted ICU stay more than 7 days• Tolerance of parenteral or enteral nutrition28-day and 90-day all cause mortality-Duration on ventilators-ICU stay-Infection incidence rate-Liver function and renal function-Diameter of midpoint of musculus rectus femoris-Serum concentration of albumin, pre-albumin, retinaldehyde binding protein, transferrin-Change of body compositionNitrogen supply is as much as 2.5–3.0 g per kilogram (lean mass weight; EN/PN)1.2–1.5 g per kilogram (lean mass weight; EN/PN)80
02678325PRCTSwitzerland• Adult patients (age 18 years or older)• Expected stay at the ICU of 4 days upon admittance or longer• Expected enteral feeding during at least 4 days-Amount of protein-Total amount of calories-Nitrogen balance-Gastric residual-Number of diarrhea events-Occurence of constipation as measured in time without defecationHigh protein enteral nutrition formula (caloric density of 1.2 kcal/ml and protein percentage 33% of the total caloric intake)Standardized normal protein enteral nutrition formula (caloric density of 1.2 kcal/ml and protein 20% of the total caloric intake)90
02865408Open-label PRCTCanada• Mechanically ventilated adult patients (> 18 years old) admitted to ICU with an expected ICU dependency (alive and need for mechanical ventilation)• Vasopressor therapy, or mechanical circulatory support, at the point of screening of an additional 3 days, as estimated by the treating physicianWhole body protein balance-Synthesis rates of hepatic secretory proteins-Biomarker of amino acid restriction or repletion-Metabolic substrates-Resting energy expenditure1.75 g/kg/day of protein (enteral supplemented with IV amino acids)1.0 g/kg/day of protein (enteral)30
03021902Phase II RCTUSARequiring mechanical ventilation with actual or expected total duration of mechanical ventilation ≥ 48 hExpected ICU stay ≥ 4 days after enrollment (to permit adequate exposure to the proposed intervention)-Physical functioning-Overall strength-upper and lower extremity-Quadriceps force-lower extremity strength-Hand held dynamometry-Distal strength-hand grip strength-Overall physical functional status-Mortality-Length of ventilation-ICU and hospital-ICU readmission-Re-intubation-Hospital-acquired infections-Discharge location (e.g., home vs rehab)-Body composition (ultrasound)-Health-related quality of life-Physical functioning (Katz Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living)-Physical functioning (mental and cognitive functioning)-Health care resource utilizationIV amino acid (2.0–2.5 g/kg/day) + in-bed cycle ergometryUsual care142
03060668Open-label PRCTBrazil•Critically ill patientsMechanically ventilatedExpected length in the ICU > 3 daysPhysical component of the SF-36-Handgrip strength-ICU and hospital mortalityCaloric intakes determined by indirect calorimetry + 2.0–2.2 g/kg/day of protein25 kcal/kg/day and 1.4 to 1.5 g/kg/day of protein294
03160547Multi-centerpragmatic volunteer-drivenregistry-basedrandomizedCanada (over 100 international sites)Nutritional high-riskMechanical ventilation60-day mortality-Nutritional adequacy-Hospital mortality-Readmission to ICU and hospital-Duration of mechanical ventilation-ICU length of stay-Hospital length of stayHigher prescription (≥ 2.2 g/kg/day) of protein (EN and/or PN)A lower prescription (≤ 1.2 g/kg/day) of protein (EN and/or PN)4000
03170401PRCTUSATrauma/surgeryEnteral nutrition expected ≥ 1 weekSerum transthyretin at 3 weeks after injury-Ventilator-free days-Hospital-acquired pneumoniaEnteral protein supplementationStandard enteral formula500
03231540PRCNetherlands• Admitted to intensive care• Mechanically ventilated• Expected duration of ventilation of 72 h• Expected to tolerate and require enteral nutrition for more than 72 h• SOFA score > 6 on admission dayIn vitro loss of skeletal muscle function-Loss of muscle function-Medical research council sum score-Changes in body composition (bioelectrical impedance analysis)-Loss of muscle mass (ultrasound of the quadriceps femoris muscle and diaphragm, questionnaires)-Quality of lifeWhey protein supplement enriched enteral nutrition, with protein intake of 1.5 g/kg/dayStandard enteral nutrition, with protein intake of 1 g/kg/day50
03319836RetrospectiveCanadaICU patientsDaily total protein intake-Caloric intake-Feeding interruptions ( tolerance)-Use of inotropes (pressors)Very high protein enteral nutritionStandard formula40

Abbreviations: PRCT prospective randomized controlled trial, ICU intensive care unit, MPR mobility-based physical rehab, EN enteral nutrition, PN parenteral nutrition, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment

Ongoing studies currently recruiting adult patients (source: Clinicaltrials.gov – Jul 23, 2018) Abbreviations: PRCT prospective randomized controlled trial, ICU intensive care unit, MPR mobility-based physical rehab, EN enteral nutrition, PN parenteral nutrition, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Meanwhile, owing to the potential risks of high amounts of proteins, the principle of precaution should prevail, i.e., the provision of 0.3–0.8 g proteins/kg/day during the early phase of critical illness. We definitely need to appraise more precisely the risk-to-benefit ratio by characterizing the relevant risks and measuring muscle function at the bedside as a proxy for the benefit of high protein intake.
  39 in total

1.  Provision of protein and energy in relation to measured requirements in intensive care patients.

Authors:  Matilde Jo Allingstrup; Negar Esmailzadeh; Anne Wilkens Knudsen; Kurt Espersen; Tom Hartvig Jensen; Jørgen Wiis; Anders Perner; Jens Kondrup
Journal:  Clin Nutr       Date:  2011-12-29       Impact factor: 7.324

2.  Protein Requirements in the Critically Ill: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Parenteral Nutrition.

Authors:  Suzie Ferrie; Margaret Allman-Farinelli; Mark Daley; Kristine Smith
Journal:  JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr       Date:  2015-12-03       Impact factor: 4.016

Review 3.  Appropriate protein provision in critical illness: a systematic and narrative review.

Authors:  L John Hoffer; Bruce R Bistrian
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2012-07-18       Impact factor: 7.045

Review 4.  Insulinotropic Effects of Whey: Mechanisms of Action, Recent Clinical Trials, and Clinical Applications.

Authors:  Rachel L Adams; Kenneth Shane Broughton
Journal:  Ann Nutr Metab       Date:  2016-08-17       Impact factor: 3.374

5.  High-protein hypocaloric vs normocaloric enteral nutrition in critically ill patients: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Saúl Rugeles; Luis Gabriel Villarraga-Angulo; Aníbal Ariza-Gutiérrez; Santiago Chaverra-Kornerup; Pieralessandro Lasalvia; Diego Rosselli
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2016-05-14       Impact factor: 3.425

6.  Early goal-directed nutrition versus standard of care in adult intensive care patients: the single-centre, randomised, outcome assessor-blinded EAT-ICU trial.

Authors:  Matilde Jo Allingstrup; Jens Kondrup; Jørgen Wiis; Casper Claudius; Ulf Gøttrup Pedersen; Rikke Hein-Rasmussen; Mads Rye Bjerregaard; Morten Steensen; Tom Hartvig Jensen; Theis Lange; Martin Bruun Madsen; Morten Hylander Møller; Anders Perner
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 17.440

7.  The Effect of IV Amino Acid Supplementation on Mortality in ICU Patients May Be Dependent on Kidney Function: Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses of a Multicenter Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Ran Zhu; Matilde J Allingstrup; Anders Perner; Gordon S Doig
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Feeding critically ill patients the right 'whey': thinking outside of the box. A personal view.

Authors:  Paul E Marik
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 6.925

Review 9.  The intensive care medicine research agenda in nutrition and metabolism.

Authors:  Yaseen M Arabi; Michael P Casaer; Marianne Chapman; Daren K Heyland; Carole Ichai; Paul E Marik; Robert G Martindale; Stephen A McClave; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jean Reignier; Todd W Rice; Greet Van den Berghe; Arthur R H van Zanten; Peter J M Weijs
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 10.  Nitrogen Balance and Protein Requirements for Critically Ill Older Patients.

Authors:  Roland N Dickerson
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2016-04-18       Impact factor: 5.717

View more
  7 in total

1.  When and how to manage enteral feeding intolerance?

Authors:  Yaseen M Arabi; Annika Reintam Blaser; Jean-Charles Preiser
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  How to achieve nutrition goals by actual nutrition guidelines.

Authors:  Christian Stoppe; Jean-Charles Preiser; Daren Heyland
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 3.  Nutrition in Sepsis: A Bench-to-Bedside Review.

Authors:  Elisabeth De Waele; Manu L N G Malbrain; Herbert Spapen
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-02-02       Impact factor: 5.717

4.  Semi-elemental versus polymeric formula for enteral nutrition in brain-injured critically ill patients: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Laurent Carteron; Emmanuel Samain; Hadrien Winiszewski; Gilles Blasco; Anne-Sophie Balon; Camille Gilli; Gael Piton; Gilles Capellier; Sebastien Pili-Floury; Guillaume Besch
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 9.097

5.  Impact of early low-calorie low-protein versus standard-calorie standard-protein feeding on outcomes of ventilated adults with shock: design and conduct of a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (NUTRIREA-3).

Authors:  Jean Reignier; Amélie Le Gouge; Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou; Djillali Annane; Laurent Argaud; Yannick Hourmant; Pierre Asfar; Julio Badie; Mai-Anh Nay; Nicolae-Vlad Botoc; Laurent Brisard; Hoang-Nam Bui; Delphine Chatellier; Louis Chauvelot; Alain Combes; Christophe Cracco; Michael Darmon; Vincent Das; Matthieu Debarre; Agathe Delbove; Jérôme Devaquet; Sebastian Voicu; Nadia Aissaoui-Balanant; Louis-Marie Dumont; Johanna Oziel; Olivier Gontier; Samuel Groyer; Bertrand Guidet; Samir Jaber; Fabien Lambiotte; Christophe Leroy; Philippe Letocart; Benjamin Madeux; Julien Maizel; Olivier Martinet; Frédéric Martino; Emmanuelle Mercier; Jean-Paul Mira; Saad Nseir; Walter Picard; Gael Piton; Gaetan Plantefeve; Jean-Pierre Quenot; Anne Renault; Laurent Guérin; Jack Richecoeur; Jean Philippe Rigaud; Francis Schneider; Daniel Silva; Michel Sirodot; Bertrand Souweine; Florian Reizine; Fabienne Tamion; Nicolas Terzi; Didier Thévenin; Guillaume Thiéry; Nathalie Thieulot-Rolin; Jean-François Timsit; François Tinturier; Patrice Tirot; Thierry Vanderlinden; Isabelle Vinatier; Christophe Vinsonneau; Diane Maugars; Bruno Giraudeau
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 6.  A guide to enteral nutrition in intensive care units: 10 expert tips for the daily practice.

Authors:  Jean-Charles Preiser; Yaseen M Arabi; Mette M Berger; Michael Casaer; Stephen McClave; Juan C Montejo-González; Sandra Peake; Annika Reintam Blaser; Greet Van den Berghe; Arthur van Zanten; Jan Wernerman; Paul Wischmeyer
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2021-12-14       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 7.  Oral Nutrition during and after Critical Illness: SPICES for Quality of Care!

Authors:  Marjorie Fadeur; Jean-Charles Preiser; Anne-Marie Verbrugge; Benoit Misset; Anne-Françoise Rousseau
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-11-14       Impact factor: 5.717

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.