The effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicentre, pragmatic, registry-based randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of low-quality evidence, international critical care nutrition guidelines recommend a wide range of protein doses. The effect of delivering high-dose protein during critical illness is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that a higher dose of protein provided to critically ill patients would improve their clinical outcomes. METHODS: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline. INTERPRETATION: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores. FUNDING: None.

A Comparison of High and Usual Protein Dosing in Critically Ill Patients With Obesity: A Post Hoc Analysis of an International, Pragmatic, Single-Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Across guidelines, protein dosing for critically ill patients with obesity varies considerably. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether this population would benefit from higher doses of protein. DESIGN: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicenter, pragmatic, registry-based randomized trial. SETTING: Eighty-five adult ICUs across 16 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with obesity defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 ( n = 425). INTERVENTIONS: In the primary study, patients were randomized into a high-dose (≥ 2.2 g/kg/d) or usual-dose protein group (≤ 1.2 g/kg/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Protein intake was monitored for up to 28 days, and outcomes (time to discharge alive [TTDA], 60-d mortality, days of mechanical ventilation [MV], hospital, and ICU length of stay [LOS]) were recorded until 60 days post-randomization. Of the 1301 patients in the primary study, 425 had a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 . After adjusting for sites and covariates, we observed a nonsignificant slower rate of TTDA with higher protein that ruled out a clinically important benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05; p = 0.10). We found no evidence of difference in TTDA between protein groups when subgroups with different classes of obesity or patients with and without various nutritional and frailty risk variables were examined, even after the removal of patients with baseline acute kidney injury. Overall, 60-day mortality rates were 31.5% and 28.2% in the high protein and usual protein groups, respectively (risk difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 12.1; p = 0.46). Duration of MV and LOS in hospital and ICU were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with obesity, higher protein doses did not improve clinical outcomes, including those with higher nutritional and frailty risk.

Major mistakes or errors in the use of trial sequential analysis in systematic reviews or meta-analyses - the METSA systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews and data synthesis of randomised clinical trials play a crucial role in clinical practice, research, and health policy. Trial sequential analysis can be used in systematic reviews to control type I and type II errors, but methodological errors including lack of protocols and transparency are cause for concern. We assessed the reporting of trial sequential analysis. METHODS: We searched Medline and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2021 for systematic reviews and meta-analysis reports that include a trial sequential analysis. Only studies with at least two randomised clinical trials analysed in a forest plot and a trial sequential analysis were included. Two independent investigators assessed the studies. We evaluated protocolisation, reporting, and interpretation of the analyses, including their effect on any GRADE evaluation of imprecision. RESULTS: We included 270 systematic reviews and 274 meta-analysis reports and extracted data from 624 trial sequential analyses. Only 134/270 (50%) systematic reviews planned the trial sequential analysis in the protocol. For analyses on dichotomous outcomes, the proportion of events in the control group was missing in 181/439 (41%), relative risk reduction in 105/439 (24%), alpha in 30/439 (7%), beta in 128/439 (29%), and heterogeneity in 232/439 (53%). For analyses on continuous outcomes, the minimally relevant difference was missing in 125/185 (68%), variance (or standard deviation) in 144/185 (78%), alpha in 23/185 (12%), beta in 63/185 (34%), and heterogeneity in 105/185 (57%). Graphical illustration of the trial sequential analysis was present in 93% of the analyses, however, the Z-curve was wrongly displayed in 135/624 (22%) and 227/624 (36%) did not include futility boundaries. The overall transparency of all 624 analyses was very poor in 236 (38%) and poor in 173 (28%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of trial sequential analyses are not transparent when preparing or presenting the required parameters, partly due to missing or poorly conducted protocols. This hampers interpretation, reproducibility, and validity. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021273811.

Enhanced exclusive enteral nutrition delivery during the first 7 days is associated with decreased 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with normal lactate level: a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Exclusive enteral nutrition (EN) is often observed during the first week of ICU admission because of the extra costs and safety considerations for early parenteral nutrition. This study aimed to assess the association between nutrition intake and 28-day mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial that assesses the effect of implementing a feeding protocol on mortality in critically ill patients. Patients who stayed in the ICUs for at least 7 days and received exclusive EN were included in this analysis. Multivariable Cox hazard regression models and restricted cubic spline models were used to assess the relationship between the different doses of EN delivery and 28-day mortality. Subgroups with varying lactate levels at enrollment were additionally analyzed to address the potential confounding effect brought in by the presence of shock-related hypoperfusion. RESULTS: Overall, 1322 patients were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) daily energy and protein delivery during the first week of enrollment were 14.6 (10.3-19.6) kcal/kg and 0.6 (0.4-0.8) g/kg, respectively. An increase of 5 kcal/kg energy delivery was associated with a significant reduction (approximately 14%) in 28-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.865, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.768-0.974, P = 0.016). For protein intake, a 0.2 g/kg increase was associated with a similar mortality reduction with an adjusted HR of 0.868 (95% CI 0.770-0.979). However, the benefits associated with enhanced nutrition delivery could be observed in patients with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L (adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.674-0.960) for energy delivery and adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.672-0.962) for protein delivery, respectively), but not in those > 2 mmol/L. CONCLUSIONS: During the first week of critical illness, enhanced nutrition delivery is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN, only for those with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12233792, registered on November 24, 2017.

The effects of higher versus lower protein delivery in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: A recent large multicentre trial found no difference in clinical outcomes but identified a possibility of increased mortality rates in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving higher protein. These alarming findings highlighted the urgent need to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis to inform clinical practice. METHODS: From personal files, citation searching, and three databases searched up to 29-5-2023, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult critically ill patients that compared higher vs lower protein delivery with similar energy delivery between groups and reported clinical and/or patient-centred outcomes. We conducted random-effect meta-analyses and subsequently trial sequential analyses (TSA) to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. The main subgroup analysis investigated studies with and without combined early physical rehabilitation intervention. A subgroup analysis of AKI vs no/not known AKI was also conducted. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs (n = 3303) with protein delivery of 1.49 ± 0.48 vs 0.92 ± 0.30 g/kg/d were included. Higher protein delivery was not associated with overall mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.11; I2 = 0%; 21 studies; low certainty) and other clinical outcomes. In 2 small studies, higher protein combined with early physical rehabilitation showed a trend towards improved self-reported quality-of-life physical function measurements at day-90 (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.84; I2 = 30%). In the AKI subgroup, higher protein delivery significantly increased mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; confirmed by TSA with high certainty, and the number needed to harm is 7). Higher protein delivery also significantly increased serum urea (mean difference 2.31 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.64-2.97; I2 = 0%; 7 studies). CONCLUSION: Higher, compared with lower protein delivery, does not appear to affect clinical outcomes in general critically ill patients but may increase mortality rates in patients with AKI. Further investigation of the combined early physical rehabilitation intervention in non-AKI patients is warranted. PROSPERO ID: CRD42023441059.

Early experience of using regional citrate anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients in a resource-limited setting.

AIM: Despite the superiority of regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), its application is limited in resource-limited settings. We aim to explore the cost and safety of RCA for CRRT in critically ill patients, compared to usual care. METHODS: This prospective observational study included patients requiring CRRT in a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) from February 2022 to January 2023. They were classified to either the RCA or usual care groups based on the anticoagulation technique chosen by the treating physician, considering contraindications. The CRRT prescription follows the institutional protocol. All relevant data were obtained from the ICU CRRT-RCA charts and electronic medical records. A cost analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (27 per group) were included, with no demographic differences. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and lactate levels were significantly higher in the usual care group. The number of filters used were comparable (p = .108). The median filter duration in the RCA group was numerically longer (35.00 [15.50-56.00] vs. 23.00 [17.00-29.00] h), but not statistically significant (p = .253). The duration of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor requirement, and mortality were similar, but the RCA group had a significantly longer ICU stay. The rate of adverse events was similar, with four severe metabolic alkalosis cases in the RCA group. The RCA group had higher total cost per patient per day (USD 611 vs. 408; p = .013). CONCLUSION: In this resource-limited setting, RCA for CRRT appeared safe and had clinically longer filter lifespan compared with usual care, albeit the increased cost.

The Efficacy of Glutamine Supplementation in Severe Adult Burn Patients: A Systematic Review With Trial Sequential Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Evidence supporting glutamine supplementation in severe adult burn patients has created a state of uncertainty due to the variability in the treatment effect reported across small and large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to systematically review the effect of glutamine supplementation on mortality in severe adult burn patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to February 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs evaluating the effect of enteral or IV glutamine supplementation alone in severe adult burn patients were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, burn injury characteristics, description of the intervention between groups, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) for mortality and infectious complications were performed. Ten RCTs (1,577 patients) were included. We observed no significant effect of glutamine supplementation on overall mortality (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; p = 0.21), infectious complications (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09; p = 0.18), or other secondary outcomes. In subgroup analyses, we observed no significant effects based on administration route or burn severity. We did observe a significant subgroup effect between single and multicenter RCTs in which glutamine significantly reduced mortality and infectious complications in singe-center RCTs but not in multicenter RCTs. However, TSA showed that the pooled results of single-center RCTs were type 1 errors and further trials would be futile. CONCLUSIONS: Glutamine supplementation, regardless of administration, does not appear to improve clinical outcomes in severely adult burned patients.

The impact of higher protein dosing on outcomes in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a post hoc analysis of the EFFORT protein trial.

BACKGROUND: Based on low-quality evidence, current nutrition guidelines recommend the delivery of high-dose protein in critically ill patients. The EFFORT Protein trial showed that higher protein dose is not associated with improved outcomes, whereas the effects in critically ill patients who developed acute kidney injury (AKI) need further evaluation. The overall aim is to evaluate the effects of high-dose protein in critically ill patients who developed different stages of AKI. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the EFFORT Protein trial, we investigated the effect of high versus usual protein dose (≥ 2.2 vs. ≤ 1.2 g/kg body weight/day) on time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) and 60-day mortality and in different subgroups in critically ill patients with AKI as defined by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria within 7 days of ICU admission. The associations of protein dose with incidence and duration of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) were also investigated. RESULTS: Of the 1329 randomized patients, 312 developed AKI and were included in this analysis (163 in the high and 149 in the usual protein dose group). High protein was associated with a slower time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8) and higher 60-day mortality (relative risk 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.8). Effect modification was not statistically significant for any subgroup, and no subgroups suggested a beneficial effect of higher protein, although the harmful effect of higher protein target appeared to disappear in patients who received kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Protein dose was not significantly associated with the incidence of AKI and KRT or duration of KRT. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with AKI, high protein may be associated with worse outcomes in all AKI stages. Recommendation of higher protein dosing in AKI patients should be carefully re-evaluated to avoid potential harmful effects especially in patients who were not treated with KRT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03160547) on May 17th 2017.

Association between intraoperative remifentanil use and postoperative hyperalgesia in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis surgery: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The liberal use of remifentanil in spine surgery has been associated with an increased incidence of postoperative hyperalgesia. Nevertheless, controversies remain as the existing evidence is inconclusive to determine the relationship between remifentanil use and the development of opioid-induced hyperalgesia. We hypothesized that intraoperative infusion of higher dose remifentanil during scoliosis surgery is associated with postoperative hyperalgesia, manifesting clinically as greater postoperative morphine consumption and pain scores. METHODS: Ninety-seven patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) who underwent posterior spinal fusion surgery at a single tertiary institution from March 2019 until June 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Anesthesia was maintained using a target-controlled infusion of remifentanil combined with volatile anesthetic desflurane in 92 patients, while five patients received it as part of total intravenous anesthesia. Intravenous ketamine, paracetamol, and fentanyl were administered as multimodal analgesia. All patients received patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine postoperatively. Pain scores at rest and on movement, assessed using the numerical rating scale, and the cumulative PCA morphine consumption were collected at a six-hourly interval for up to 48 h. According to the median intraoperative remifentanil dose usage of 0.215 µg/kg/min, patients were divided into two groups: low dose and high dose group. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the pain score and cumulative PCA morphine consumption between the low and high dose remifentanil group. The mean duration of remifentanil infusion was 134.9 ± 22.0 and 123.4 ± 23.7 min, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative use of remifentanil as an adjuvant in AIS patients undergoing posterior spinal fusion surgery was not associated with postoperative hyperalgesia.

Critical Appraisal of a Systematic Review: A Concise Review.

OBJECTIVES: Concise definitive review of how to read and critically appraise a systematic review. DATA SOURCES: None. STUDY SELECTION: Current literature describing the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. DATA EXTRACTION: Best practices for conducting, reporting, and appraising systematic review were summarized. DATA SYNTHESIS: A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant original research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Critical appraisal methods address both the credibility (quality of conduct) and rate the confidence in the quality of summarized evidence from a systematic review. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool is a widely used practical tool to appraise the conduct of a systematic review. Confidence in estimates of effect is determined by assessing for risk of bias, inconsistency of results, imprecision, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are transparent and reproducible summaries of research and conclusions drawn from them are only as credible and reliable as their development process and the studies which form the systematic review. Applying evidence from a systematic review to patient care considers whether the results can be directly applied, whether all important outcomes have been considered, and if the benefits are worth potential harms and costs.

IV Vitamin C in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of IV vitamin C on outcomes in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials testing IV vitamin C in critically ill patients. DATA ABSTRACTION: Two independent reviewers abstracted patient characteristics, treatment details, and clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies involving 2,490 patients were identified. Compared with placebo, IV vitamin C administration is associated with a trend toward reduced overall mortality (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.06; test for heterogeneity I2 = 6%). High-dose IV vitamin C was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.96; p = 0.03), whereas low-dose IV vitamin C had no effect (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.07; p = 0.46; test for subgroup differences, p = 0.14). IV vitamin C monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83; p = 0.006), whereas there was no effect with IV vitamin C combined therapy. No trial reported an increase in adverse events related to IV vitamin C. CONCLUSIONS: IV vitamin C administration appears safe and may be associated with a trend toward reduction in overall mortality. High-dose IV vitamin C monotherapy may be associated with improved overall mortality, and further randomized controlled trials are warranted.

Administration of vitamin D and its metabolites in critically ill adult patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of vitamin D administration in critically ill patients remains inconclusive. The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of vitamin D and its metabolites on major clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, including a subgroup analysis based on vitamin D status and route of vitamin D administration. METHODS: Major databases were searched through February 9, 2022. Randomized controlled trials of adult critically ill patients with an intervention group receiving vitamin D or its metabolites were included. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Risk of bias assessment included the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. RESULTS: Sixteen randomized clinical trials with 2449 patients were included. Vitamin D administration was associated with lower overall mortality (16 studies: risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.97, p = 0.03; I2 = 30%), reduced intensive care unit length of stay (12 studies: mean difference - 3.13 days, 95% CI - 5.36 to - 0.89, n = 1250, p = 0.006; I2 = 70%), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (9 studies: mean difference - 5.07 days, 95% CI - 7.42 to - 2.73, n = 572, p < 0.0001; I2 = 54%). Parenteral administration was associated with a greater effect on overall mortality than enteral administration (test of subgroup differences, p = 0.04), whereas studies of parenteral subgroups had lower quality. There were no subgroup differences based on baseline vitamin D levels. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation in critically ill patients may reduce mortality. Parenteral administration might be associated with a greater impact on mortality. Heterogeneity and assessed certainty among the studies limits the generalizability of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021256939-05 July 2021).

Omega-6 sparing effects of parenteral lipid emulsions-an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Parenteral lipid emulsions in critical care are traditionally based on soybean oil (SO) and rich in pro-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids (FAs). Parenteral nutrition (PN) strategies with the aim of reducing omega-6 FAs may potentially decrease the morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients published from inception to June 2021, which investigated clinical omega-6 sparing effects. Two independent reviewers extracted bias risk, treatment details, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Random effect meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: 1054 studies were identified in our electronic search, 136 trials were assessed for eligibility and 26 trials with 1733 critically ill patients were included. The median methodologic score was 9 out of 14 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 7, 10). Omega-6 FA sparing PN in comparison with traditional lipid emulsions did not decrease overall mortality (20 studies; risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.76, 1.10; p = 0.34) but hospital length of stay was substantially reduced (6 studies; weighted mean difference [WMD] - 6.88; 95% CI - 11.27, - 2.49; p = 0.002). Among the different lipid emulsions, fish oil (FO) containing PN reduced the length of intensive care (8 studies; WMD - 3.53; 95% CI - 6.16, - 0.90; p = 0.009) and rate of infectious complications (4 studies; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44, 0.95; p = 0.03). When FO was administered as a stand-alone medication outside PN, potential mortality benefits were observed compared to standard care. CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings highlight distinctive omega-6 sparing effects attributed to PN. Among the different lipid emulsions, FO in combination with PN or as a stand-alone treatment may have the greatest clinical impact. Trial registration PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021259238).

The effect of higher versus lower protein delivery in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

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.

A Single-Center Prospective Observational Study Comparing Resting Energy Expenditure in Different Phases of Critical Illness: Indirect Calorimetry Versus Predictive Equations.

OBJECTIVES: Several predictive equations have been developed for estimation of resting energy expenditure, but no study has been done to compare predictive equations against indirect calorimetry among critically ill patients at different phases of critical illness. This study aimed to determine the degree of agreement and accuracy of predictive equations among ICU patients during acute phase (≤ 5 d), late phase (6-10 d), and chronic phase (≥ 11 d). DESIGN: This was a single-center prospective observational study that compared resting energy expenditure estimated by 15 commonly used predictive equations against resting energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry at different phases. Degree of agreement between resting energy expenditure calculated by predictive equations and resting energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analyses. Resting energy expenditure values calculated from predictive equations differing by ± 10% from resting energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry was used to assess accuracy. A score ranking method was developed to determine the best predictive equations. SETTING: General Intensive Care Unit, University of Malaya Medical Centre. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Indirect calorimetry was measured thrice during acute, late, and chronic phases among 305, 180, and 91 ICU patients, respectively. There were significant differences (F= 3.447; p = 0.034) in mean resting energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry among the three phases. Pairwise comparison showed mean resting energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry in late phase (1,878 ± 517 kcal) was significantly higher than during acute phase (1,765 ± 456 kcal) (p = 0.037). The predictive equations with the best agreement and accuracy for acute phase was Swinamer (1990), for late phase was Brandi (1999) and Swinamer (1990), and for chronic phase was Swinamer (1990). None of the resting energy expenditure calculated from predictive equations showed very good agreement or accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive equations tend to either over- or underestimate resting energy expenditure at different phases. Predictive equations with "dynamic" variables and respiratory data had better agreement with resting energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry compared with predictive equations developed for healthy adults or predictive equations based on "static" variables. Although none of the resting energy expenditure calculated from predictive equations had very good agreement, Swinamer (1990) appears to provide relatively good agreement across three phases and could be used to predict resting energy expenditure when indirect calorimetry is not available.