Impact of early low-calorie low-protein versus standard-calorie standard-protein feeding on outcomes of ventilated adults with shock: design and conduct of a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group trial (NUTRIREA-3).

INTRODUCTION: International guidelines include early nutritional support (≤48 hour after admission), 20-25 kcal/kg/day, and 1.2-2 g/kg/day protein at the acute phase of critical illness. Recent data challenge the appropriateness of providing standard amounts of calories and protein during acute critical illness. Restricting calorie and protein intakes seemed beneficial, suggesting a role for metabolic pathways such as autophagy, a potential key mechanism in safeguarding cellular integrity, notably in the muscle, during critical illness. However, the optimal calorie and protein supply at the acute phase of severe critical illness remains unknown. NUTRIREA-3 will be the first trial to compare standard calorie and protein feeding complying with guidelines to low-calorie low-protein feeding. We hypothesised that nutritional support with calorie and protein restriction during acute critical illness decreased day 90 mortality and/or dependency on intensive care unit (ICU) management in mechanically ventilated patients receiving vasoactive amine therapy for shock, compared with standard calorie and protein targets. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NUTRIREA-3 is a randomised, controlled, multicentre, open-label trial comparing two parallel groups of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and vasoactive amine therapy for shock and given early nutritional support according to one of two strategies: early calorie-protein restriction (6 kcal/kg/day-0.2-0.4 g/kg/day) or standard calorie-protein targets (25 kcal/kg/day, 1.0-1.3 g/kg/day) at the acute phase defined as the first 7 days in the ICU. We will include 3044 patients in 61 French ICUs. Two primary end-points will be evaluated: day 90 mortality and time to ICU discharge readiness. The trial will be considered positive if significant between-group differences are found for one or both alternative primary endpoints. Secondary outcomes include hospital-acquired infections and nutritional, clinical and functional outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The NUTRIREA-3 study has been approved by the appropriate ethics committee. Patients are included after informed consent. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03573739.

Quantitative-analysis of computed tomography in COVID-19 and non COVID-19 ARDS patients: A case-control study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess whether the computed tomography (CT) features of COVID-19 (COVID+) ARDS differ from those of non-COVID-19 (COVID-) ARDS patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study is a single-center prospective observational study performed on adults with ARDS onset ≤72 h and a PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg. CT scans were acquired at PEEP set using a PEEP-FiO2 table with VT adjusted to 6 ml/kg predicted body weight. RESULTS: 22 patients were included, of whom 13 presented with COVID-19 ARDS. Lung weight was significantly higher in COVID- patients, but all COVID+ patients presented supranormal lung weight values. Noninflated lung tissue was significantly higher in COVID- patients (36 ± 14% vs. 26 ± 15% of total lung weight at end-expiration, p < 0.01). Tidal recruitment was significantly higher in COVID- patients (20 ± 12 vs. 9 ± 11% of VT, p < 0.05). Lung density histograms of 5 COVID+ patients with high elastance (type H) were similar to those of COVID- patients, while those of the 8 COVID+ patients with normal elastance (type L) displayed higher aerated lung fraction.