Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Use of a High-Protein Enteral Nutrition Formula to Increase Protein Delivery to Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized, Blinded, Parallel-Group, Feasibility Trial

  • Lee anne S. Chapple
  • , Matthew J. Summers
  • , Rinaldo Bellomo
  • , Marianne J. Chapman
  • , Andrew R. Davies
  • , Suzie Ferrie
  • , Mark E. Finnis
  • , Sally Hurford
  • , Kylie Lange
  • , Lorraine Little
  • , Stephanie N. O'Connor
  • , Sandra L. Peake
  • , Emma J. Ridley
  • , Paul J. Young
  • , Patricia J. Williams
  • , Adam M. Deane
  • , for the TARGET Investigator Collaborative and the ANZICS Clinical Trials Group

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

Abstract

Background: International guidelines recommend critically ill adults receive more protein than most receive. We aimed to establish the feasibility of a trial to evaluate whether feeding protein to international recommendations would improve outcomes, in which 1 group received protein doses representative of international guideline recommendations (high protein) and the other received doses similar to usual practice. Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, blinded, parallel-group, feasibility trial across 6 intensive care units. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults expected to receive enteral nutrition (EN) for ≥2 days were randomized to receive EN containing 63 or 100 g/L protein for ≤28 days. Data are mean (SD) or median (interquartile range). Results: The recruitment rate was 0.35 (0.13) patients per day, with 120 patients randomized and data available for 116 (n = 58 per group). Protein delivery was greater in the high-protein group (1.52 [0.52] vs 0.99 [0.27] grams of protein per kilogram of ideal body weight per day; difference, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38–0.69] g/kg/d protein), with no difference in energy delivery (difference, −26 [95% CI, −190 to 137] kcal/kg/d). There were no between-group differences in the duration of feeding (8.7 [7.3] vs 8.1 [6.3] days), and blinding of the intervention was confirmed. There were no differences in clinical outcomes, including 90-day mortality (14/55 [26%] vs 15/56 [27%]; risk difference, −1.3% [95% CI, −17.7% to 15.0%]). Conclusion: Conducting a multicenter blinded trial is feasible to compare protein delivery at international guideline–recommended levels with doses similar to usual care during critical illness.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)699-709
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Volume45
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - May 2021

Keywords

  • critical illness
  • enteral feeding
  • nutrition
  • protein

Cite this