Do We Have Clinical Equipoise (or Uncertainty) About How Much Protein to Provide to Critically Ill Patients?

No benefit of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

The optimal range of protein dosage and effect of high-dose protein on critically ill patients remain controversial. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare higher and lower doses of protein supplementation for nutritional support in critically ill patients.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials that compared higher (≥1.2 g/kg per day) versus lower (<1.2 g/kg per day) doses of protein supplementation among critically ill adult patients. This search spanned from the inception of relevant databases to November 20, 2023. Our primary endpoint of interest was overall mortality, while secondary endpoints included length of stay in the intensive care unit, length of hospital stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of acute kidney injury.

Results

Seventeen studies including 2,965 critically ill patients were included in our meta-analysis. The pooled analyses showed no significant difference in overall mortality (RR 1.03, 95%CI [0.92-1.15], P = 0.65, I2 = 0%), length of intensive care unit stay (MD 0.19, 95%CI [-0.67 to 1.04], P = 0.66, I2 = 25%), length of hospital stay (MD 0.73, 95%CI [-1.59 to 3.04], P = 0.54, I2 = 27%), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.14, 95%CI [-0.83 to 0.54], P = 0.68, I2 = 8%), and incidence of acute kidney injury (RR 1.11, 95%CI [0.87-1.41], P = 0.38, I2 = 0%) between critically ill patients receiving higher or lower doses of protein supplementation.

Conclusions

For critically ill patients, the protein supplementation dose had no significant effect on clinical outcomes, including overall mortality, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of acute kidney injury.

Association between urea trajectory and protein dose in critically ill adults: a secondary exploratory analysis of the effort protein trial (RE-EFFORT)

BACKGROUND

Delivering higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve patient outcomes and may have caused harm. Longitudinal urea measurements could provide additional information about the treatment effect of higher protein doses. We hypothesised that higher urea values over time could explain the potential harmful treatment effects of higher doses of protein.

METHODS

We conducted a reanalysis of a randomised controlled trial of higher protein doses in critical illness (EFFORT Protein). We applied Bayesian joint models to estimate the strength of association of urea with 30-day survival and understand the treatment effect of higher protein doses.

RESULTS

Of the 1301 patients included in EFFORT Protein, 1277 were included in this analysis. There were 344 deaths at 30 days post-randomisation. By day 6, median urea was 2.1 mmol/L higher in the high protein group (95% CI 1.1-3.2), increasing to 3.0 mmol/L (95% CI 1.3-4.7) by day 12. A twofold rise in urea was associated with an increased risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio 1.34, 95% credible interval 1.21-1.48), following adjustment of baseline characteristics including age, illness severity, renal replacement therapy, and presence of AKI. This association persisted over the duration of 30-day follow-up and in models adjusting for evolution of organ failure over time.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased risk of death in patients randomised to a higher protein dose in the EFFORT Protein trial was estimated to be mediated by increased urea cycle activity, of which serum urea is a biological signature. Serum urea should be taken into consideration when initiating and continuing protein delivery in critically ill patients.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier: NCT03160547 (2017-05-17).

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.

Catabolism in Critical Illness

OBJECTIVES

Ongoing risk of death and poor functional outcomes are important consequences of prolonged critical illness. Characterizing the catabolic phenotype of prolonged critical illness could illuminate biological processes and inform strategies to attenuate catabolism. We aimed to examine if urea-to-creatinine ratio, a catabolic signature of prolonged critical illness, was associated with mortality after the first week of ICU stay.

DESIGN

Reanalysis of multicenter randomized trial of glutamine supplementation in critical illness (REducing Deaths due to OXidative Stress [REDOXS]).

SETTING

Multiple adult ICUs.

PATIENTS

Adult patients admitted to ICU with two or more organ failures related to their acute illness and surviving to day 7.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The association between time-varying urea-to-creatinine ratio and 30-day mortality was tested using Bayesian joint models adjusted for prespecified-covariates (age, kidney replacement therapy, baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, dietary protein [g/kg/d], kidney dysfunction, and glutamine-randomization). From 1,021 patients surviving to day 7, 166 (16.3%) died by day 30. After adjustment in a joint model, a higher time-varying urea-to-creatinine ratio was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 2.15; 95% credible interval, 1.66-2.82, for a two-fold greater urea-to-creatinine ratio). This association persisted throughout the 30-day follow-up. Mediation analysis was performed to explore urea-to-creatinine ratio as a mediator-variable for the increased risk of death reported in REDOXS when randomized to glutamine, an exogenous nitrogen load. Urea-to-creatinine ratio closest to day 7 was estimated to mediate the risk of death associated with randomization to glutamine supplementation (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.38; p = 0.014), with no evidence of a direct effect of glutamine (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.62-1.30; p = 0.566).

CONCLUSIONS

The catabolic phenotype measured by increased urea-to-creatinine ratio is associated with increased risk of death during prolonged ICU stay and signals the deleterious effects of glutamine administration in the REDOXS study. Urea-to-creatinine ratio is a promising catabolic signature and potential interventional target.

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

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03693-4.

Nutrition in Sepsis: A Bench-to-Bedside Review

Nutrition therapy in sepsis is challenging and differs from the standard feeding approach in critically ill patients. The dysregulated host response caused by infection induces progressive physiologic alterations, which may limit metabolic capacity by impairing mitochondrial function. Hence, early artificial nutrition should be ramped-up and emphasis laid on the post-acute phase of critical illness. Caloric dosing is ideally guided by indirect calorimetry, and endogenous energy production should be considered. Proteins should initially be delivered at low volume and progressively increased to 1.3 g/kg/day following shock symptoms wane. Both the enteral and parenteral route can be (simultaneously) used to cover caloric and protein targets. Regarding pharmaconutrition, a low dose glutamine seems appropriate in patients receiving parenteral nutrition. Supplementing arginine or selenium is not recommended. High-dose vitamin C administration may offer substantial benefit, but actual evidence is too limited for advocating its routine use in sepsis. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids to modulate metabolic processes can be safely used, but non-inferiority to other intravenous lipid emulsions remains unproven in septic patients. Nutrition stewardship, defined as the whole of interventions to optimize nutritional approach and treatment, should be pursued in all septic patients but may be difficult to accomplish within a context of profoundly altered cellular metabolic processes and organ dysfunction caused by time-bound excessive inflammation and/or immune suppression. This review aims to provide an overview and practical recommendations of all aspects of nutritional therapy in the setting of sepsis.