Effect of high versus standard protein provision on functional recovery in people with critical illness (PRECISe): an investigator-initiated, double-blinded, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in Belgium and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Increased protein provision might ameliorate muscle wasting and improve long-term outcomes in critically ill patients. The aim of the PRECISe trial was to assess whether higher enteral protein provision (ie, 2·0 g/kg per day) would improve health-related quality of life and functional outcomes in critically ill patients who were mechanically ventilated compared with standard enteral protein provision (ie, 1·3 g/kg per day). METHODS: The PRECISe trial was an investigator-initiated, double-blinded, multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in five Dutch hospitals and five Belgian hospitals. Inclusion criteria were initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and an expected duration of invasive ventilation of 3 days or longer. Exclusion criteria were contraindications for enteral nutrition, moribund condition, BMI less than 18 kg/m2, kidney failure with a no dialysis code, or hepatic encephalopathy. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four randomisation labels, corresponding with two study groups (ie, standard or high protein; two labels per group) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio through an interactive web-response system. Randomisation was done via random permuted-block randomisation in varying block sizes of eight and 12, stratified by centre. Participants, care providers, investigators, outcome assessors, data analysts, and the independent data safety monitoring board were all blinded to group allocation. Patients received isocaloric enteral feeds that contained 1·3 kcal/mL and 0·06 g of protein/mL (ie, standard protein) or 1·3 kcal/mL and 0·10 g of protein/mL (ie, high protein). The study-nutrition intervention was limited to the time period during the patient's ICU stay in which they required enteral feeding, with a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was EuroQoL 5-Dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) health utility score at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days after randomisation, adjusted for baseline EQ-5D-5L health utility score. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04633421) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Nov 19, 2020, and April 14, 2023, 935 patients were randomly assigned. 335 (35·8%) of 935 patients were female and 600 (64·2%) were male. 465 (49·7%) of 935 were assigned to the standard protein group and 470 (50·3%) were assigned to the high protein group. 430 (92·5%) of 465 patients in the standard protein group and 419 (89·1%) of 470 patients in the high protein group were assessed for the primary outcome. The primary outcome, EQ-5D-5L health utility score during 180 days after randomisation (assessed at 30 days, 90 days, and 180 days), was lower in patients allocated to the high protein group than in those allocated to the standard protein group, with a mean difference of -0·05 (95% CI -0·10 to -0·01; p=0·031). Regarding safety outcomes, the probability of mortality during the entire follow-up was 0·38 (SE 0·02) in the standard protein group and 0·42 (0·02) in the high protein group (hazard ratio 1·14, 95% CI 0·92 to 1·40; p=0·22). There was a higher incidence of symptoms of gastrointestinal intolerance in patients in the high protein group (odds ratio 1·76, 95% CI 1·06 to 2·92; p=0·030). Incidence of other adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION: High enteral protein provision compared with standard enteral protein provision resulted in worse health-related quality of life in critically ill patients and did not improve functional outcomes during 180 days after ICU admission. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Healthcare Research and Development and Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre.

Administration of Free Amino Acids Improves Exogenous Amino Acid Availability when Compared with Intact Protein in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Protein digestion and amino acid absorption appear compromised in critical illness. The provision of enteral feeds with free amino acids rather than intact protein may improve postprandial amino acid availability. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to quantify the uptake of diet-derived phenylalanine after the enteral administration of intact protein compared with an equivalent amount of free amino acids in critically ill patients. METHODS: Sixteen patients who were mechanically ventilated in intensive care unit (ICU) at risk of malabsorption received a primed continuous infusion of L-[ring-2H5]-phenylalanine and L-[ring-3,5-2H2]-tyrosine after an overnight fast. Patients were randomly allocated to receive 20 g intrinsically L-[1-13C]-phenylalanine-labeled milk protein or an equivalent amount of amino acids labeled with free L-[1-13C]-phenylalanine via a nasogastric tube over a 2-h period. Protein digestion and amino acid absorption kinetics and whole-body protein net balance were assessed throughout a 6-h period. RESULTS: After enteral nutrient infusion, both plasma phenylalanine and leucine concentrations increased (P-time < 0.001), with a more rapid and greater rise after free amino acid compared with intact protein administration (P-time × treatment = 0.003). Diet-derived phenylalanine released into the circulation was 25% greater after free amino acids compared with intact protein administration [68.7% (confidence interval {CI}: 62.3, 75.1%) compared with 43.8% (CI: 32.4, 55.2%), respectively; P < 0.001]. Whole-body protein net balance became positive after nutrient administration (P-time < 0.001) and tended to be more positive after free amino acid in provision (P-time × treatment = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of free amino acids as opposed to intact protein further increases postprandial plasma amino acid availability in critically ill patients, allowing more diet-derived phenylalanine to become available to peripheral tissues. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04791774.

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.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation versus standard treatment for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of several randomized trials on extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) in patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were examined using frequentist methods, resulting in a dichotomous interpretation of results based on p-values rather than in the probability of clinically relevant treatment effects. To determine such a probability of a clinically relevant ECPR-based treatment effect on neurological outcomes, the authors of these trials performed a Bayesian meta-analysis of the totality of randomized ECPR evidence. METHODS: A systematic search was applied to three electronic databases. Randomized trials that compared ECPR-based treatment with conventional CPR for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. The study was preregistered in INPLASY (INPLASY2023120060). The primary Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis estimated the difference in 6-month neurologically favorable survival in patients with all rhythms, and a secondary analysis assessed this difference in patients with shockable rhythms (Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model). Primary Bayesian analyses were performed under vague priors. Outcomes were formulated as estimated median relative risks, mean absolute risk differences, and numbers needed to treat with corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrIs). The posterior probabilities of various clinically relevant absolute risk difference thresholds were estimated. RESULTS: Three randomized trials were included in the analysis (ECPR, n = 209 patients; conventional CPR, n = 211 patients). The estimated median relative risk of ECPR for 6-month neurologically favorable survival was 1.47 (95%CrI 0.73-3.32) with a mean absolute risk difference of 8.7% (- 5.0; 42.7%) in patients with all rhythms, and the median relative risk was 1.54 (95%CrI 0.79-3.71) with a mean absolute risk difference of 10.8% (95%CrI - 4.2; 73.9%) in patients with shockable rhythms. The posterior probabilities of an absolute risk difference > 0% and > 5% were 91.0% and 71.1% in patients with all rhythms and 92.4% and 75.8% in patients with shockable rhythms, respectively. CONCLUSION: The current Bayesian meta-analysis found a 71.1% and 75.8% posterior probability of a clinically relevant ECPR-based treatment effect on 6-month neurologically favorable survival in patients with all rhythms and shockable rhythms. These results must be interpreted within the context of the reported credible intervals and varying designs of the randomized trials. REGISTRATION: INPLASY (INPLASY2023120060, December 14th, 2023, https://doi.org/10.37766/inplasy2023.12.0060 ).

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation for refractory cardiac arrest: an overview of current practice and evidence.

Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common and potentially avoidable cause of death, while constituting a substantial public health burden. Although survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) have improved in recent decades, the prognosis for refractory OHCA remains poor. The use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly being considered to support rescue measures when conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) fails. ECPR enables immediate haemodynamic and respiratory stabilisation of patients with CA who are refractory to conventional CPR and thereby reduces the low-flow time, promoting favourable neurological outcomes. In the case of refractory OHCA, multiple studies have shown beneficial effects in specific patient categories. However, ECPR might be more effective if it is implemented in the pre-hospital setting to reduce the low-flow time, thereby limiting permanent brain damage. The ongoing ON-SCENE trial might provide a definitive answer regarding the effectiveness of ECPR. The aim of this narrative review is to present the most recent literature available on ECPR and its current developments.

The impact of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery following intensive care admission: Protocol for a pre-planned secondary Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRECISe trial is a pragmatic, multicenter randomized controlled trial that evaluates the effect of high versus standard enteral protein provision on functional recovery in adult, mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. The current protocol presents the rationale and analysis plan for an evaluation of the primary and secondary outcomes under the Bayesian framework, with an emphasis on clinically important effect sizes. METHODS: This protocol was drafted in agreement with the ROBUST-statement, and is submitted for publication before database lock and primary data analysis. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-5L health utility score and is longitudinally assessed. Secondary outcomes comprise the 6-min walking test and handgrip strength over the entire follow-up period (longitudinal analyses), and 60-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and EQ-5D-5L health utility scores at 30, 90 and 180 days (cross-sectional). All analyses will primarily be performed under weakly informative priors. When available, informative priors elicited from contemporary literature will also be incorporated under alternative scenarios. In all other cases, objectively formulated skeptical and enthusiastic priors will be defined to assess the robustness of our results. Relevant identified subgroups were: patients with acute kidney injury, severe multi-organ failure and patients with or without sepsis. Results will be presented as absolute risk differences, mean differences, and odds ratios, with accompanying 95% credible intervals. Posterior probabilities will be estimated for clinically important benefit and harm. DISCUSSION: The proposed secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis of the PRECISe trial will provide additional information on the effects of high protein on functional and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, such as probabilistic interpretation, probabilities of clinically important effect sizes, and the integration of prior evidence. As such, it will complement the interpretation of the primary outcome as well as several secondary and subgroup analyses.

Cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation vs. conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a pre-planned, trial-based economic evaluation.

AIMS: When out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) becomes refractory, extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a potential option to restore circulation and improve the patient's outcome. However, ECPR requires specific materials and highly skilled personnel, and it is unclear whether increased survival and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) justify these costs. METHODS AND RESULTS: This cost-effectiveness study was part of the INCEPTION study, a multi-centre, pragmatic randomized trial comparing hospital-based ECPR to conventional CPR (CCPR) in patients with refractory OHCA in 10 cardiosurgical centres in the Netherlands. We analysed healthcare costs in the first year and measured HRQOL using the EQ-5D-5L at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost-effectiveness planes, and acceptability curves were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed for per-protocol and as-treated subgroups as well as imputed productivity loss in deceased patients. In total, 132 patients were enrolled: 62 in the CCPR and 70 in the ECPR group. The difference in mean costs after 1 year was €5109 (95% confidence interval -7264 to 15 764). Mean quality-adjusted life year (QALY) after 1 year was 0.15 in the ECPR group and 0.11 in the CCPR group, resulting in an ICER of €121 643 per additional QALY gained. The acceptability curve shows that at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €80.000, the probability of ECPR being cost-effective compared with CCPR is 36%. Sensitivity analysis showed increasing ICER in the per-protocol and as-treated groups and lower probabilities of acceptance. CONCLUSION: Hospital-based ECPR in refractory OHCA has a low probability of being cost-effective in a trial-based economic evaluation.

Health-related quality of life one year after refractory cardiac arrest treated with conventional or extracorporeal CPR; a secondary analysis of the INCEPTION-trial.

Background: Prospective, trial-based data comparing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) through extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) or conventional CPR (CCPR) are scarce. We aimed to determine HRQoL during 1-year after refractory OHCA in patients treated with ECPR and CCPR. Methods: We present a secondary analysis of the multicenter INCEPTION-trial, which studied the effectiveness of ECPR versus CCPR in patients with refractory OHCA. HRQoL was prospectively assessed using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Poor HRQoL was pragmatically defined as an EQ-5D-5L health utility index (HUI) > 1 SD below the age-adjusted norm. We used mixed linear models to assess the difference in HRQoL over time and univariable analyses to assess factors potentially associated with poor HRQoL. Results: A total of 134 patients were enrolled, and hospital survival was 20% (27 patients). EQ-5D-5L data were available for 25 patients (5 ECPR and 20 CCPR). One year after OHCA, the estimated mean HUI was 0.73 (0.05) in all patients, 0.84 (0.12) in ECPR survivors, and 0.71 (0.05) in CCPR survivors (p-value 0.31). Eight (32%) survivors had a poor HRQoL. HRQoL was good in 17 (68%) patients, with 100% in ECPR survivors versus 60% in CCPR survivors (p-value 0.14). Conclusion: One year after refractory OHCA, 68% of the survivors had a good HRQoL. We found no statistically significant difference in HRQoL one year after OHCA in patients treated with ECPR compared to CCPR. However, numerical differences may be clinically relevant in favor of ECPR.

Favorable resuscitation characteristics in patients undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A secondary analysis of the INCEPTION-trial.

Introduction: Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is increasingly used as a supportive treatment for refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Still, there is a paucity of data evaluating favorable and unfavorable prognostic characteristics in patients considered for ECPR. Methods: We performed a previously unplanned post-hoc analysis of the multicenter randomized controlled INCEPTION-trial. The study group consisted of patients receiving ECPR, irrespective of initial group randomization. The patients were divided into favorable survivors (cerebral performance category [CPC] 1-2) and unfavorable or non-survivors (CPC 3-5). Results: In the initial INCEPTION-trial, 134 patients were randomized. ECPR treatment was started in 46 (66%) of 70 patients in the ECPR treatment arm and 3 (4%) of 74 patients in the conventional treatment arm. No statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics, medical history, or causes of arrest were observed between survivors (n = 5) and non-survivors (n = 44). More patients in the surviving group had a shockable rhythm at the time of cannulation (60% vs. 14%, p = 0.037), underwent more defibrillation attempts (13 vs. 6, p = 0.002), and received higher dosages of amiodarone (450 mg vs 375 mg, p = 0.047) despite similar durations of resuscitation maneuvers. Furthermore, non-survivors more frequently had post-ECPR implantation adverse events. Conclusion: The persistence of ventricular arrhythmia is a favorable prognostic factor in patients with refractory OHCA undergoing an ECPR-based treatment. Future studies are warranted to confirm this finding and to establish additional prognostic factors.Clinical trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT03101787.