Optimized calorie and high protein intake versus recommended caloric-protein intake in critically ill patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled phase II clinical trial

Association between protein intake and functional capacity in critically ill patients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) protein benchmarks are based on mortality and morbidity; whether these targets also support functional recovery is unknown. We assessed whether different protein doses influenced patients' functional capacity, measured by the Chelsea Physical Assessment score (CPAx).

METHODS

Single-center retrospective cohort study on ICU survivors with length of stay ≥7 days admitted between October 2014 and September 2020. Eligible patients were divided according to protein intake (g/kg/day): low (<0.8), medium (0.8-1.19), high (1.2-1.5), and very high (>1.5). Protein dose effect on CPAx was assessed at ICU discharge with analysis of covariance adjusting for age, illness severity, hospital length of stay before ICU admission, time to start nutrition support, and mechanical ventilation duration. We also investigated effect modification by energy intake and nutrition status.

RESULTS

Enrolled patients (n = 531) were similar for age, nutrition status, and illness severity across groups. CPAxs were nonlinearly associated with protein doses and similar among low, medium, and very high groups. The CPAx for the high group was statistically different (P = 0.014), indicating that the data of three groups could be pooled. Mean CPAx difference remained statistically significant after adjusting for confounding variables (3.9 ± 1.8, P = 0.029 in the four-group model, and 2.7 ± 0.9, P = 0.003 in the pooled two-group model). Energy intake was equivalent between groups and did not modify CPAx. The high group had superior CPAx in both well-nourished and malnourished patients, indicating nutrition status was not an effect modifier.

CONCLUSION

Protein dose 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day was associated with superior functional capacity at ICU discharge compared with other doses. Neither energy intake nor nutrition status modified functional capacity across groups; therefore, the results appear to be influenced by 1.2-1.5 g/kg/day.

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.

Effects of Energy Delivery Guided by Indirect Calorimetry in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The utility of using indirect calorimetry (IC) to estimate energy needs and methods for its application to this purpose remain unclear. This systematic review investigated whether using IC to estimate energy expenditure in critically ill patients is more meaningful for improving survival than other estimation methods.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were conducted in MEDLINE using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Igaku-Chuo-Zasshi up to March 2023.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs involving 1178 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The evidence obtained suggested that energy delivery by IC improved short-term mortality (risk ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.06). However, the use of IC did not appear to affect the length of ICU stay (mean difference [MD], 0.86; 95% CI, -0.98 to 2.70) or the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD, 0.66; 95% CI, -0.39 to 1.72). Post hoc analyses using short-term mortality as the outcome found no significant difference by target calories in resting energy expenditure, whereas more frequent IC estimates were associated with lower short-term mortality and were more effective in mechanically ventilated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This updated meta-analysis revealed that the use of IC may improve short-term mortality in patients with critical illness and did not increase adverse events.

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.

High protein provision of more than 1.2 g/kg improves muscle mass preservation and mortality in ICU patients: A systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

ICU patients lose muscle mass rapidly and maintenance of muscle mass may contribute to improved survival rates and quality of life. Protein provision may be beneficial for preservation of muscle mass and other clinical outcomes, including survival. Current protein recommendations are expert-based and range from 1.2 to 2.0 g/kg. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on protein provision and all clinically relevant outcomes recorded in the available literature.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses, including studies of all designs except case control and case studies, with patients aged ≥18 years with an ICU stay of ≥2 days and a mean protein provision group of ≥1.2 g/kg as compared to <1.2 g/kg with a difference of ≥0.2 g/kg between protein provision groups. All clinically relevant outcomes were studied. Meta-analyses were performed for all clinically relevant outcomes that were recorded in ≥3 included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 29 studies published between 2012 and 2022 were included. Outcomes reported in the included studies were ICU, hospital, 28-day, 30-day, 42-day, 60-day, 90-day and 6-month mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, vomiting, diarrhea, gastric residual volume, pneumonia, overall infections, nitrogen balance, changes in muscle mass, destination at hospital discharge, physical performance and psychological status. Meta-analyses showed differences between groups in favour of high protein provision for 60-day mortality, nitrogen balance and changes in muscle mass.

CONCLUSION

High protein provision of more than 1.2 g/kg in critically ill patients seemed to improve nitrogen balance and changes in muscle mass on the short-term and likely 60-day mortality. Data on long-term effects on quality of life are urgently needed.

The effect of protein provision and exercise therapy on patient-reported and clinical outcomes in intensive care unit survivors: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) survivors deal with long-term health problems, which negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). Nutritional and exercise intervention could prevent the decline of muscle mass and physical functioning which occurs during critical illness. Despite the growing amount of research, robust evidence is lacking.

METHODS

For this systematic review, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. The effect of protein provision (PP) or combined protein and exercise therapy (CPE) during or after ICU admission on QoL, physical functioning, muscle health, protein/energy intake and mortality was assessed compared to standard care.

RESULTS

Four thousand nine hundred and fifty-seven records were identified. After screening, data were extracted for 15 articles (9 randomised controlled trials and 6 non-randomised studies). Two studies reported improvements in muscle mass, of which one found higher independency in activities of daily living. No significant effect was found on QoL. Overall, protein targets were seldom met and often below recommendations.

CONCLUSION

Evidence for the effect of PP or CPE on patient-reported outcomes in ICU survivors is limited due to study heterogeneity and lack of high-quality studies. Future research and clinical practice should focus on adequate protein delivery with exercise interventions to improve long-term outcomes.

Nutrition support for critically ill patients

Nutrition support is an important aspect of the management of critically ill patients. This review highlights the emerging evidence on critical care nutrition and focuses on the pathophysiologic interplay between critical illness, the gastrointestinal tract, and nutrition support and the evidence on the best route, dose, and timing of nutrition. Although indirect calorimetry is recommended to measure energy expenditure, predictive equations are commonly used but are limited by their inaccuracy in individual patients. The current evidence supports early enteral nutrition (EN) in most patients, with a gradual increase in the daily dose over the first week. Delayed EN is warranted in patients with severe shock. According to recent trials, parenteral nutrition seems to be as effective as EN and may be started if adequate EN is not achieved by the first week of critical illness. A high protein dose has been recommended, but the best timing is unclear. Immuno-nutrition should not be routinely provided to critically ill patients. Patients receiving artificial nutrition should be monitored for metabolic derangements. Additional adequately powered studies are still needed to resolve many unanswered questions.

High-protein intake and early exercise in adult intensive care patients: a prospective, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact on functional outcomes

Background

We evaluated the efficacy of high protein intake and early exercise versus standard nutrition care and routine physiotherapy on the outcome of critically ill patients.

Methods

We randomized mechanically ventilated patients expected to stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) for 4 days. We used indirect calorimetry to determine energy expenditure and guide caloric provision to the patients randomized to the high protein and early exercise (HPE) group and the control group. Protein intakes were 1.48 g/kg/day and 1.19 g/kg/day medians respectively; while the former was submitted to two daily sessions of cycle ergometry exercise, the latter received routine physiotherapy. We evaluated the primary outcome physical component summary (PCS) score at 3 and 6 months) and the secondary outcomes (handgrip strength at ICU discharge and ICU and hospital mortality).

Results

We analyzed 181 patients in the HPE (87) and control (94) group. There was no significant difference between groups in relation to calories received. However, the amount of protein received by the HPE group was significantly higher than that received by the control group (p < 0.0001). The PCS score was significantly higher in the HPE group at 3 months (p = 0.01) and 6 months (p = 0.01). The mortality was expressively higher in the control group. We found an independent association between age and 3-month PCS and that between age and group and 6-month PCS.

Conclusion

This study showed that a high-protein intake and resistance exercise improved the physical quality of life and survival of critically ill patients.

Trial registration

Research Ethics Committee of Hospital São Domingos: Approval number 1.487.683, April 09, 2018. The study protocol was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03469882, March 19,2018).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01492-6.

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.

The effect of indirect calorimetry guided isocaloric nutrition on mortality in critically ill patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Indirect calorimetry (IC)-guided nutrition might positively affect the clinical outcome of critically ill patients. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, our objective was to assess the benefit of isocaloric nutrition guided by IC, compared to hypocaloric nutrition, for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We performed a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials published through January 2021, assessing the benefit of isocaloric nutrition guided by IC. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were ICU and 90-day all-cause mortality, rate of nosocomial infections, and adverse events. Four trials evaluating 1052 patients were included. Patients treated with isocaloric nutrition had a lower 28-day mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.99, P = 0.04). No between-group difference was found in ICU and 90-day mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.68-1.23, P = 0.56 and RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.07; P = 0.2, respectively) and in the rate of nosocomial infections (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.77-1.72, P = 0.51). A pooled analysis of studies that evaluated the benefit of isocaloric nutrition guided by IC, for critically ill patients in the ICU, has shown reduced 28-day mortality. However, there was no difference in 90-day mortality and nosocomial infection rate.

Energy delivery guided by indirect calorimetry in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of indirect calorimetry (IC) is increasing due to its precision in resting energy expenditure (REE) measurement in critically ill patients. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of an IC-guided nutrition therapy compared to predictive equations strategy in such a patient population.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases up to October 25, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they focused on energy delivery guided by either IC or predictive equations in critically ill adults. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to assess the quality of the included studies. Short-term mortality was the primary outcome. The meta-analysis was performed with the fixed-effect model or random-effect model according to the heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with 991 adults met the inclusion criteria. The overall quality of the included studies was moderate. Significantly higher mean energy delivered per day was observed in the IC group, as well as percent delivered energy over REE targets, than the control group. IC-guided energy delivery significantly reduced short-term mortality compared with the control group (risk ratio = 0.77; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; I² = 3%, P = 0.03). IC-guided strategy did not significantly prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference [MD] = 0.61 days; 95% CI - 1.08 to 2.29; P = 0.48), length of stay in ICU (MD = 0.32 days; 95% CI - 2.51 to 3.16; P = 0.82) and hospital (MD = 0.30 days; 95% CI - 3.23 to 3.83; P = 0.87). Additionally, adverse events were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis indicates that IC-guided energy delivery significantly reduces short-term mortality in critically ill patients. This finding encourages the use of IC-guided energy delivery during critical nutrition support. But more high-quality studies are still needed to confirm these findings.

Medical high-protein nutrition therapy and loss of muscle mass in adult ICU patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The degradation of muscle mass and loss of functional proteins due to catabolism are associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill patients. While an adequate supply of protein within a medical nutrition concept is suggested to minimize proteolysis, the specificities on appropriate dosage and timing are still under debate. The current study aimed to evaluate the effect of two different quantities of protein as part of a standardized energetically controlled nutrition therapy for the preservation of muscle mass in the later phase of critical illness.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 42 critically ill patients (age 65 ± 15; 12 females; SAPS 45 ± 11; TISS 20 ± 7; SOFA-score 7 ± 3). The subjects were randomly assigned to either the intervention (1.8 g protein/kg body weight [BW]/d) or standard (1.2 g protein/kg BW/d) group. Nutrient supply via enteral and/or parenteral nutrition was calculated based on the individual energy expenditure measured by indirect calorimetry and target protein content. Quadriceps muscle layer thickness (QMLT) was observed through sonography at inclusion, and during the follow-up period, two and four weeks after inclusion. The measurement points were fixed on two sides at the midpoint and two-thirds between the anterior superior iliac spine and top of the patella. The data were analyzed descriptively wherein chi-squared tests or unpaired two-samle t-tests checked group differences. Daily changes in muscle mass were estimated using a linear mixed model. All data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation (SD).

RESULTS

Actual protein intake reached 1.5 ± 0.5 g and 1.0 ± 0.5 g/kg BW/d in the intervention and standard group, respectively. Mean values of all measurements of QMLT at inclusion (day 13 ± 2 after ICU admission) were 13.5 ± 7.4 mm and 13.4 ± 7.1 mm in the intervention and standard group, respectively (P = 0.967). In both the groups, QMLT decreased over time (P < 0.001), while the estimated mean values of daily QMLT changes were -0.15 ± 0.08 mm (intervention) and -0.28 ± 0.08 mm (standard) without significant between-group differences (intervention effect, P = 0.368; time x intervention effect, P = 0.242). Illness scores and clinical outcomes showed no group differences.

CONCLUSION

In this single-center trial the increased amounts of protein (1.5 g vs. 1.0 g/kg BW/d) provided through medical nutrition therapy in the late phase of critical illness did not achieve a statistically significant impact on the loss of muscle mass in long-term immobilized ICU patients. Larger multi-center trials are needed to evaluate whether observed numerical differences in muscle mass could be a true finding, and will translate into improved clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register (http://www.drks.de/), DRKS-ID: DRKS00013594.

Protein intake and outcome in critically ill patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The objective of this review is to describe the impact of protein intake on the outcomes of critically ill patients in the literature published in the preceding 2 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Observational studies showed inconsistent results regarding the association of higher protein intake and outcomes of critically ill patients. Randomized controlled trials that directly compared higher versus lower protein intake in ICU patients are scarce, varied considerably in their designs and primary outcomes, and generally had relatively small differences in the amount of delivered protein between the study arms. Systematic reviews of existing studies showed no difference in mortality with higher protein intake. In addition, there is uncertainty regarding high protein provision in the early phase of critical illness.

SUMMARY

The optimal amount of protein intake in critically ill patients remains largely unclear and is considered a high priority for research. Ongoing clinical trials are likely to provide additional evidence on several important questions including the dose, timing, type of protein and the interaction with caloric intake and exercise.