Literature DB >> 32534949

TICACOS international: A multi-center, randomized, prospective controlled study comparing tight calorie control versus Liberal calorie administration study.

P Singer1, E De Waele2, C Sanchez3, S Ruiz Santana4, J C Montejo5, P F Laterre6, A Soroksky7, E Moscovici8, I Kagan8.   

Abstract

Since the first TICACOS study, 3 additional studies have been published comparing a medical nutrition therapy guided by indirect calorimetry to a regimen prescribed on the basis of predictive equations. A recent guidelines document included a meta-analysis including these 4 papers and found a trend for improvement (OR 0.98-1.48) in favor of medical nutrition therapy guided by indirect calorimetry in terms of survival. The aim of our study was to perform a multicenter prospective, randomized, controlled non blinded study in critically patients to assess the added value for measuring daily resting energy expenditure as a guide for nutritional support. The primary objective was to decrease infectious rate of these critically ill patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This phase III, multi-center, randomized, controlled non blinded study was planned to include 580 newly-admitted, adult ventilated ICU patients that were planned to stay more than 48 h in the ICU departments. The nutritional support was aimed to meet 80-100% of energy requirement measured by indirect calorimetry. The calorie needs were determined by IC in the Study group and by an equation (20-25 kcal/kg ideal body weight/day) in the Control Group. The ICU staff was trained to strive to supply 80-100% of a patient's energy requirements through artificial nutrition, preferably enteral feeding. Primary endpoint was infection rate and secondary endpoints included other morbidities and mortality during ICU, at 90 and 180 days. Comparison between the study and the control group was performed using T test for equality of means (independent samples test). Correlations were performed using the Pearson correlation test. A p level of 0.05 or below was considered as significant. Cross tabs procedure used Chi-square test for testing differences in complication rates, length of stay and length of ventilation. Correlations between energy balances and complications was also be tested using one way analysis as well as ANOVA analysis between groups and within groups. Kaplan Meir curves assessed the proportion of surviving patients in the 2 groups.
RESULTS: Seven centers with a calorimeter available participated to the study. Due to slow inclusion rate, the study was stopped after 6 years and after inclusion of 417 patients only. From the 417 intended to treat patients, 339 followed the protocol. There was no differences between control and study groups in terms of age, sex BMI, SOFA (7.1 ± 3.1 vs 7.4 ± 3.3) and APACHE II scores (22.4 ± 7.9 vs 22.2 ± 7.4). The rate of infection (40 vs 31), including pneumonia rate, need for surgery, dialysis requirement, length of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay were not different between groups. Mortality (30 in the control vs 21 in the study group) was not significantly different between groups. The decreased mortality observed in the study group when added to previous studies may have a positive effect on the meta-analysis previously published.
CONCLUSION: Tight Calorie Control guided by indirect calorimetry decreased the rate of infection and mortality but not significantly. This may be explained by the not relatively small sample size. There results together with the previous 4 prospective randomized studies, may improve the results of the meta-analysis exploring the effects of IC guided nutrition on mortality.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Calories; Energy; Enteral parenteral nutrition; Indirect calorimetry; Intensive care; Protein

Year:  2020        PMID: 32534949     DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.05.024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0261-5614            Impact factor:   7.324


  6 in total

1.  Do we need different predictive equations for the acute and late phases of critical illness? A prospective observational study with repeated indirect calorimetry measurements.

Authors:  Pei Chien Tah; Bee Koon Poh; Chee Cheong Kee; Zheng-Yii Lee; Vineya-Rai Hakumat-Rai; Mohd Basri Mat Nor; Mazuin Kamarul Zaman; Hazreen Abdul Majid; M Shahnaz Hasan
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 4.884

2.  Albumin-Globulin Ratio Is an Independent Determinant of 28-Day Mortality in Patients with Critical Illness.

Authors:  Bin Liu; Kun Xiao; Peng Yan; Tianyu Sun; Jiang Wang; Fei Xie; Guoxin Mo; Lixin Xie
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2021-08-25       Impact factor: 3.434

Review 3.  How Differences in the Disease Process of the COVID-19 Pandemic Pose Challenges to the Delivery of Critical Care Nutrition.

Authors:  Mohamed Eisa; Stephen A McClave; Sally Suliman; Paul Wischmeyer
Journal:  Curr Nutr Rep       Date:  2021-10-21

Review 4.  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

5.  Clinical nutrition issues in 2022: What is missing to trust supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) in ICU patients?

Authors:  Mette M Berger; Rosa Burgos; Michael P Casaer; Edoardo De Robertis; Juan Carlos Lopez Delgado; Vincent Fraipont; João Gonçalves-Pereira; Claude Pichard; Christian Stoppe
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2022-09-10       Impact factor: 19.334

6.  Full Versus Trophic Feeds in Critically Ill Adults with High and Low Nutritional Risk Scores: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Chen-Yu Wang; Pin-Kuei Fu; Wen-Cheng Chao; Wei-Ning Wang; Chao-Hsiu Chen; Yi-Chia Huang
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-11-15       Impact factor: 5.717

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.