JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2024
Nutrition provision over time in longer stay critically ill patients: A post hoc analysis of The Augmented vs Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Viner Smith Elizabeth, Lange Kylie, Peake Sandra, Chapman Marianne J, Ridley Emma J, Rayner Christopher K, Chapple Lee-Anne S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Limited literature exists on nutrition practices for long-stay patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to compare nutrition practices in the first and second weeks of an ICU admission.
METHOD: A post hoc exploratory analysis of The Augmented vs Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) randomized controlled trial (RCT) was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were: enrolled in TARGET on day 1 or 2 of ICU admission and ICU length of stay (LOS) >14 days. Clinical characteristics are described, and nutrition delivery and management compared between days 1-7 and 8-14. Data are n (%), mean ± SD, median (interquartile range [IQR]), or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), with P < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: Data from 664 patients were analyzed (56.2 ± 16.3 years; 61% male; body mass index 29.2 ± 7.5 kg/m2 and APACHE II 21.9 ± 8.1). When comparing days 1-7 to 8-14: (1) energy delivery was greater (all sources: 1826 ± 603 vs 1729 ± 689 (MD: 97 [95% CI: 52-140] kcal/day, P < 0.001) and nonnutrition sources: 317 ± 230 vs 192 ± 197 (MD 125 [95% CI: 111-139] kcal/day; P < 0.001); (2) protein delivery was similar (66 ± 20 vs 68 ± 24 (MD: -1.4 [95% CI: -3.2 to 0.4] g/day; P = 0.125]); and (3) fewer patients received parenteral nutrition (PN) (5% vs 9%, P < 0.001) or small intestine feeding (3% vs 8%; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis, patients with an ICU LOS >14 days had greater energy delivery and fewer patients received PN or small intestine feeding during days 1-7 than days 8-14. Uncertainty remains regarding whether these data reflect usual practice and the clinical implications of this.
METHOD: A post hoc exploratory analysis of The Augmented vs Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) randomized controlled trial (RCT) was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were: enrolled in TARGET on day 1 or 2 of ICU admission and ICU length of stay (LOS) >14 days. Clinical characteristics are described, and nutrition delivery and management compared between days 1-7 and 8-14. Data are n (%), mean ± SD, median (interquartile range [IQR]), or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI), with P < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: Data from 664 patients were analyzed (56.2 ± 16.3 years; 61% male; body mass index 29.2 ± 7.5 kg/m2 and APACHE II 21.9 ± 8.1). When comparing days 1-7 to 8-14: (1) energy delivery was greater (all sources: 1826 ± 603 vs 1729 ± 689 (MD: 97 [95% CI: 52-140] kcal/day, P < 0.001) and nonnutrition sources: 317 ± 230 vs 192 ± 197 (MD 125 [95% CI: 111-139] kcal/day; P < 0.001); (2) protein delivery was similar (66 ± 20 vs 68 ± 24 (MD: -1.4 [95% CI: -3.2 to 0.4] g/day; P = 0.125]); and (3) fewer patients received parenteral nutrition (PN) (5% vs 9%, P < 0.001) or small intestine feeding (3% vs 8%; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: In this post hoc analysis, patients with an ICU LOS >14 days had greater energy delivery and fewer patients received PN or small intestine feeding during days 1-7 than days 8-14. Uncertainty remains regarding whether these data reflect usual practice and the clinical implications of this.