Zheng-Yii Lee1, Cindy Sing Ling Yap1, M Shahnaz Hasan1, Julia Patrick Engkasan2, Mohd Yusof Barakatun-Nisak3,4, Andrew G Day5, Jayshil J Patel6, Daren K Heyland7. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 3. Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. 4. Institute for Social Science Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia. 5. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Queen's University and the Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada. 6. Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. 7. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Queen's University and the Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, ON, Canada. dkh2@queensu.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal protein dose in critical illness is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of higher versus lower protein delivery (with similar energy delivery between groups) on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically ill patients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD -3.44% per week, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.90; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients, a higher daily protein delivery was not associated with any improvement in clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Larger, and more definitive RCTs are needed to confirm the effect of muscle loss attenuation associated with higher protein delivery. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021237530.
BACKGROUND: The optimal protein dose in critical illness is unknown. We aim to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effect of higher versus lower protein delivery (with similar energy delivery between groups) on clinical and patient-centered outcomes in critically illpatients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically illpatients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD -3.44% per week, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.90; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In critically illpatients, a higher daily protein delivery was not associated with any improvement in clinical or patient-centered outcomes. Larger, and more definitive RCTs are needed to confirm the effect of muscle loss attenuation associated with higher protein delivery. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021237530.
Authors: Gunnar Elke; Wolfgang H Hartl; K Georg Kreymann; Michael Adolph; Thomas W Felbinger; Tobias Graf; Geraldine de Heer; Axel R Heller; Ulrich Kampa; Konstantin Mayer; Elke Muhl; Bernd Niemann; Andreas Rümelin; Stephan Steiner; Christian Stoppe; Arved Weimann; Stephan C Bischoff Journal: Clin Nutr ESPEN Date: 2019-07-09
Authors: Marianna S Sioson; Robert Martindale; Anuja Abayadeera; Nabil Abouchaleh; Dita Aditianingsih; Rungsun Bhurayanontachai; Wei-Chin Chiou; Naoki Higashibeppu; Mohd Basri Mat Nor; Emma Osland; Jose Emmanuel Palo; Nagarajan Ramakrishnan; Medhat Shalabi; Luu Ngan Tam; Jonathan Jit Ern Tan Journal: Clin Nutr ESPEN Date: 2018-01-03
Authors: Margaret S Herridge; Angela M Cheung; Catherine M Tansey; Andrea Matte-Martyn; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Fatma Al-Saidi; Andrew B Cooper; Cameron B Guest; C David Mazer; Sangeeta Mehta; Thomas E Stewart; Aiala Barr; Deborah Cook; Arthur S Slutsky Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-02-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Zheng-Yii Lee; Su Ping Ong; Ching Choe Ng; Cindy Sing Ling Yap; Julia Patrick Engkasan; Mohd Yusof Barakatun-Nisak; Daren K Heyland; M Shahnaz Hasan Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Pierre Singer; Annika Reintam Blaser; Mette M Berger; Waleed Alhazzani; Philip C Calder; Michael P Casaer; Michael Hiesmayr; Konstantin Mayer; Juan Carlos Montejo; Claude Pichard; Jean-Charles Preiser; Arthur R H van Zanten; Simon Oczkowski; Wojciech Szczeklik; Stephan C Bischoff Journal: Clin Nutr Date: 2018-09-29 Impact factor: 7.324
Authors: Robert J J van Gassel; Michelle R Baggerman; Marcel C G van de Poll Journal: Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.620
Authors: Wolfgang H Hartl; Michael Hiesmayr; Martin Matejovic; Olivier Huet; Karolien Dams; Gunnar Elke; Clara Vaquerizo Alonso; Akos Csomos; Łukasz J Krzych; Romano Tetamo; Zudin Puthucheary; Olav Rooyackers; Inga Tjäder; Helmut Kuechenhoff Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 19.334
Authors: Wolfgang H Hartl; Philipp Kopper; Andreas Bender; Fabian Scheipl; Andrew G Day; Gunnar Elke; Helmut Küchenhoff Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Johannes Menger; Zheng-Yii Lee; Quirin Notz; Julia Wallqvist; M Shahnaz Hasan; Gunnar Elke; Martin Dworschak; Patrick Meybohm; Daren K Heyland; Christian Stoppe Journal: Crit Care Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 19.334