Rationale: The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared with a lesser amount of calories are unknown.Objectives: Our hypotheses were that achieving approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness would increase quality-of-life scores, return to work, and key life activities and reduce death and disability 6 months later.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3,957 mechanically ventilated critically ill adults allocated to energy-dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition.Measurements and Main Results: Participants assigned energy-dense nutrition received more calories (percent recommended energy intake, mean [SD]; energy-dense: 103%  vs. usual: 69% ). Mortality at Day 180 was similar (560/1,895 [29.6%] vs. 539/1,920 [28.1%]; relative risk 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.16]). At a median (interquartile range) of 185 (182-193) days after randomization, 2,492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality-of-life questionnaire visual analog scale, median [interquartile range]: 75 [60-85]; group difference: 0 [95% confidence interval, 0-0]). Similar numbers of participants returned to work with no difference in hours worked or effectiveness at work (n = 818). There was no observed difference in disability (n = 1,208) or participation in key life activities (n = 705).Conclusions: The delivery of approximately 100% compared with 70% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness does not improve quality of life or functional outcomes or increase the number of survivors 6 months later.
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Apr 2020|
- critical illness
- disability and health
- enteral nutrition
- quality of life