Is protein intake saturated at doses recommended by the feeding guidelines for critically ill patients?

Gunst, Jan; Casaer, Michaël P

doi:10.1186/s13054-018-2149-z

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several observational studies have suggested that high protein intake could improve morbidity and mortality [ 28 ]. However, the relevance of high protein intake in ICU patients remains controversial, since no beneficial effect and even harmful effects were reported in other observational and randomized controlled studies [ 12 , 29 – 33 ]. Nonetheless, the ESPEN guidelines recommend that 1.3 g/kg/day of protein should be gradually delivered in critically ill patients [ 5 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Semi-elemental versus polymeric formula for enteral nutrition in brain-injured critically ill patients: a randomized trial

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The properties of semi-elemental enteral nutrition might theoretically improve gastrointestinal tolerance in brain-injured patients, known to suffer gastroparesis. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerance of a semi-elemental versus a polymeric formula for enteral nutrition (EN) in brain-injured critically ill patients. Methods Prospective, randomized study including brain-injured adult patients [Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤ 8] with an expected duration of mechanical ventilation > 48 h. Intervention: an enteral semi-elemental (SE group) or polymeric (P group) formula. EN was started within 36 h after admission to the intensive care unit and was delivered according to a standardized nurse-driven protocol. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients who received both 60% of the daily energy goal at 3 days and 100% of the daily energy goal at 5 days after inclusion. Tolerance of EN was assessed by the rate of gastroparesis, vomiting and diarrhea. Results Respectively, 100 and 95 patients were analyzed in the SE and P groups: Age (57[44–65] versus 55[40–65] years) and GCS (6[3–7] versus 5[3–7]) did not differ between groups. The percentage of patients achieving the primary endpoint was similar (46% and 48%, respectively; relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.05 (0.78–1.42); p = 0.73). The mean daily energy intake was, respectively, 20.2 ± 6.3 versus 21.0 ± 6.5 kcal/kg/day (p = 0.42). Protein intakes were 1.3 ± 0.4 versus 1.1 ± 0.3 g/kg/day (p < 0.0001). Respectively, 18% versus 12% patients presented gastroparesis (p = 0.21), and 16% versus 8% patients suffered from diarrhea (p = 0.11). No patient presented vomiting in either group. Conclusion Semi-elemental compared to polymeric formula did not improve daily energy intake or gastrointestinal tolerance of enteral nutrition. Trial registration EudraCT/ID-RCB 2012-A00078-35 (registered January 17, 2012).

show abstract