Free Fatty Acids' Level and Nutrition in Critically Ill Patients and Association with Outcomes: A Prospective Sub-Study of PermiT Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical and nutritional correlates of high free fatty acids (FFAs) level in critically ill patients and the association with outcomes, and to study the effect of short-term caloric restriction (permissive underfeeding) on FFAs level during critical illness. PATIENTS/METHOD: In this pre-planned sub-study of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding vs. Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial, we included critically ill patients who were expected to stay for ≥14 days in the intensive care unit. We measured FFAs level on day 1, 3, 5, 7, and 14 of enrollment. Of 70 enrolled patients, 23 (32.8%) patients had high FFAs level (baseline FFAs level >0.45 mmol/L in females and >0.6 mmol/L in males). RESULTS: Patients with high FFAs level were significantly older and more likely to be females and diabetics and they had lower ratio of partial pressure of oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, higher creatinine, and higher total cholesterol levels than those with normal FFAs level. During the study period, patients with high FFAs level had higher blood glucose and required more insulin. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the predictors of high baseline FFAs level were diabetes (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 5.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.56, 18.43, p = 0.008) and baseline cholesterol level (aOR, 4.29; 95% CI: 11.64, 11.19, p = 0.003). Serial levels of FFAs did not differ with time between permissive underfeeding and standard feeding groups. FFAs level was not associated with 90-day mortality (aOR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.09, 2.60, p = 0.40). CONCLUSION: We conclude that high FFAs level in critically ill patients is associated with features of metabolic syndrome and is not affected by short-term permissive underfeeding.

Caloric intake and the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio in hypercapnic acute respiratory failure: Post-hoc analysis of the PermiT trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of moderate caloric enteral intake in critically ill patients with hypercapnic acute respiratory failure (HCARF) is unclear. We studied the impact of permissive underfeeding (PUF) compared with standard feeding (SF) on various HCARF outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PermiT trial randomized 894 patients to either PUF (40-60% caloric requirement) or SF (70-100% requirement) with similar protein intake and found no difference in mortality, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration and ventilator-free days. In this post-hoc study, we restricted analysis to mechanically-ventilated patients with HCARF (PaCO2 >45 mmHg on the first two study days) and assessed the impact of trial interventions and fat-to-carbohydrate ratio on outcomes. RESULTS: One-hundred-twenty patients had HCARF (59 PUF and 61 SF, age 53.7 ± 17.8 years, body mass index 31.1 ± 11.2 kg/m2, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 21.7 ± 7.1 and day-1 PaCO2 61 ± 16 mmHg). Caloric intake was 815 ± 270 kcal/day in PUF group and 1289 ± 407 kcal/day in SF group. The two groups had similar PaCO2 levels during ICU stay. The 90-day mortality (33.9% versus 35.6%, p = 0.85), MV duration (10.7 ± 6.8 versus 11.1 ± 8.1 days, p = 0.56) and ventilator-free days (52.9 ± 38.6 versus 51.2 ± 38.0 days, p = 0.80) were also similar in PUF and SF groups, respectively. Ventilator-free days and 90-day mortality were similar when the fat-to-carbohydrate ratio was < or ≥ the median value (0.73) in all patients and in PUF and SF groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HCARF, SF and PUF were associated with similar PaCO2, MV duration, ventilator-free days and mortality. Fat-to-carbohydrate ratio was not associated with mortality or ventilator-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry: ISRCTN68144998.

Permissive Underfeeding or Standard Enteral Feeding in High- and Low-Nutritional-Risk Critically Ill Adults. Post Hoc Analysis of the PermiT Trial.

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.

Permissive Underfeeding or Standard Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate caloric goal for critically ill adults is unclear. We evaluated the effect of restriction of nonprotein calories (permissive underfeeding), as compared with standard enteral feeding, on 90-day mortality among critically ill adults, with maintenance of the full recommended amount of protein in both groups. METHODS: At seven centers, we randomly assigned 894 critically ill adults with a medical, surgical, or trauma admission category to permissive underfeeding (40 to 60% of calculated caloric requirements) or standard enteral feeding (70 to 100%) for up to 14 days while maintaining a similar protein intake in the two groups. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups; 96.8% of the patients were receiving mechanical ventilation. During the intervention period, the permissive-underfeeding group received fewer mean (±SD) calories than did the standard-feeding group (835±297 kcal per day vs. 1299±467 kcal per day, P<0.001; 46±14% vs. 71±22% of caloric requirements, P<0.001). Protein intake was similar in the two groups (57±24 g per day and 59±25 g per day, respectively; P=0.29). The 90-day mortality was similar: 121 of 445 patients (27.2%) in the permissive-underfeeding group and 127 of 440 patients (28.9%) in the standard-feeding group died (relative risk with permissive underfeeding, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.16; P=0.58). No serious adverse events were reported; there were no significant between-group differences with respect to feeding intolerance, diarrhea, infections acquired in the intensive care unit (ICU), or ICU or hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Enteral feeding to deliver a moderate amount of nonprotein calories to critically ill adults was not associated with lower mortality than that associated with planned delivery of a full amount of nonprotein calories. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; PermiT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN68144998.).

Glutamine and antioxidants in the critically ill patient: a post hoc analysis of a large-scale randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The recent large randomized controlled trial of glutamine and antioxidant supplementation suggested that high-dose glutamine is associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients with multiorgan failure. The objectives of the present analyses were to reevaluate the effect of supplementation after controlling for baseline covariates and to identify potentially important subgroup effects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a post hoc analysis of a prospective factorial 2 × 2 randomized trial conducted in 40 intensive care units in North America and Europe. In total, 1223 mechanically ventilated adult patients with multiorgan failure were randomized to receive glutamine, antioxidants, both glutamine and antioxidants, or placebo administered separate from artificial nutrition. We compared each of the 3 active treatment arms (glutamine alone, antioxidants alone, and glutamine + antioxidants) with placebo on 28-day mortality. Post hoc, treatment effects were examined within subgroups defined by baseline patient characteristics. Logistic regression was used to estimate treatment effects within subgroups after adjustment for baseline covariates and to identify treatment-by-subgroup interactions (effect modification). RESULTS: The 28-day mortality rates in the placebo, glutamine, antioxidant, and combination arms were 25%, 32%, 29%, and 33%, respectively. After adjusting for prespecified baseline covariates, the adjusted odds ratio of 28-day mortality vs placebo was 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.1, P = .05), 1.2 (0.8-1.8, P = .40), and 1.4 (0.9-2.0, P = .09) for glutamine, antioxidant, and glutamine plus antioxidant arms, respectively. In the post hoc subgroup analysis, both glutamine and antioxidants appeared most harmful in patients with baseline renal dysfunction. No subgroups suggested reduced mortality with supplements. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for baseline covariates, early provision of high-dose glutamine administered separately from artificial nutrition was not beneficial and may be associated with increased mortality in critically ill patients with multiorgan failure. For both glutamine and antioxidants, the greatest potential for harm was observed in patients with multiorgan failure that included renal dysfunction upon study enrollment.

A randomized trial of glutamine and antioxidants in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients have considerable oxidative stress. Glutamine and antioxidant supplementation may offer therapeutic benefit, although current data are conflicting. METHODS: In this blinded 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 1223 critically ill adults in 40 intensive care units (ICUs) in Canada, the United States, and Europe who had multiorgan failure and were receiving mechanical ventilation to receive supplements of glutamine, antioxidants, both, or placebo. Supplements were started within 24 hours after admission to the ICU and were provided both intravenously and enterally. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Because of the interim-analysis plan, a P value of less than 0.044 at the final analysis was considered to indicate statistical significance. RESULTS: There was a trend toward increased mortality at 28 days among patients who received glutamine as compared with those who did not receive glutamine (32.4% vs. 27.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.64; P=0.05). In-hospital mortality and mortality at 6 months were significantly higher among those who received glutamine than among those who did not. Glutamine had no effect on rates of organ failure or infectious complications. Antioxidants had no effect on 28-day mortality (30.8%, vs. 28.8% with no antioxidants; adjusted odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.40; P=0.48) or any other secondary end point. There were no differences among the groups with respect to serious adverse events (P=0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Early provision of glutamine or antioxidants did not improve clinical outcomes, and glutamine was associated with an increase in mortality among critically ill patients with multiorgan failure. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00133978.).

Permissive underfeeding versus target enteral feeding in adult critically ill patients (PermiT Trial): a study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nutritional support is an essential part of the management of critically ill patients. However, optimal caloric intake has not been systematically evaluated. We aim to compare two strategies of enteral feeding: permissive underfeeding versus target feeding. METHOD/DESIGN: This is an international multi-center randomized controlled trial in critically ill medical- surgical adult patients. Using a centralized allocation, 862 patients will be randomized to permissive underfeeding or target feeding. Patients in the permissive group receive 50% (acceptable range is 40% to 60%) of the calculated caloric requirement, while those in the targeted group receive 100% (acceptable range 70% to 100%) of the calculated caloric requirement. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include ICU and hospital mortality, 28-day, and 180-day mortality as well as health care-associated infections, organ failure, and length of stay in the ICU and hospital. The trial has 80% power to detect an 8% absolute reduction in 90-day mortality assuming a baseline risk of death of 25% at an alpha level of 0.05. DISCUSSION: Patient recruitment started in November 2009 and is currently active in five centers. The Data Monitoring Committee advised continuation of the trial after the first interim analysis. The study is expected to finish by November 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68144998.

The bedside investigation of pulmonary embolism diagnosis study: a double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing combinations of 3 bedside tests vs ventilation-perfusion scan for the initial investigation of suspected pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether using combinations of 3 bedside tests (7-variable clinical model, non-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay D-dimer test, and alveolar dead-space fraction) to exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) before diagnostic imaging was as safe as a standard strategy of starting with ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scan. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized, controlled equivalency trial, patients were randomized to initial bedside tests or to initial V/Q scan without bedside tests. Patients assigned to the bedside test group had a sham V/Q scan performed if at least 2 of 3 bedside test results were negative; otherwise, they underwent an actual V/Q scan. Further diagnostic management was determined by a blinded physician after V/Q scan. The primary outcome measure was recurrent venous thromboembolic events during 3 months among patients who were not taking anticoagulant agents after the initial investigations were completed. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-eight consecutive adults with suspected PE were eligible for the study; 398 of 399 consenting and randomized patients completed the study. The follow-up venous thromboembolic event rate was 2.4% in the bedside test group vs 3.0% in the V/Q scan group (P = .76). Pulmonary embolism was excluded in 34% (67/199) of the bedside test group patients with at least 2 negative results on 3 bedside tests vs 18% (35/199) excluded using only the 7-variable clinical model and the D-dimer test. CONCLUSION: Excluding PE with at least 2 negative results on 3 bedside tests safely eliminates the need for diagnostic imaging in 34% of patients with suspected PE.