Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Lancet ; 404(10453): 659-669, 2024 Aug 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39153816

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Proteínas Alimentares , Nutrição Enteral , Qualidade de Vida , Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Estado Terminal/terapia , Bélgica , Método Duplo-Cego , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos , Nutrição Enteral/métodos , Idoso , Proteínas Alimentares/administração & dosagem , Recuperação de Função Fisiológica , Respiração Artificial , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva
2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 10: 1080007, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36817782

RESUMO

Background: In the previously reported SAPS trial (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01139489), procalcitonin-guidance safely reduced the duration of antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients. We assessed the impact of shorter antibiotic treatment on antimicrobial resistance development in SAPS patients. Materials and methods: Cultures were assessed for the presence of multi-drug resistant (MDR) or highly resistant organisms (HRMO) and compared between PCT-guided and control patients. Baseline isolates from 30 days before to 5 days after randomization were compared with those from 5 to 30 days post-randomization. The primary endpoint was the incidence of new MDR/HRMO positive patients. Results: In total, 8,113 cultures with 96,515 antibiotic test results were evaluated for 439 and 482 patients randomized to the PCT and control groups, respectively. Disease severity at admission was similar for both groups. Median (IQR) durations of the first course of antibiotics were 6 days (4-10) and 7 days (5-11), respectively (p = 0.0001). Antibiotic-free days were 7 days (IQR 0-14) and 6 days (0-13; p = 0.05). Of all isolates assessed, 13% were MDR/HRMO positive and at baseline 186 (20%) patients were MDR/HMRO-positive. The incidence of new MDR/HRMO was 39 (8.9%) and 45 (9.3%) in PCT and control patients, respectively (p = 0.82). The time courses for MDR/HRMO development were also similar for both groups (p = 0.33). Conclusions: In the 921 randomized patients studied, the small but statistically significant reduction in antibiotic treatment in the PCT-group did not translate into a detectable change in antimicrobial resistance. Studies with larger differences in antibiotic treatment duration, larger study populations or populations with higher MDR/HRMO incidences might detect such differences.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA