The effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicentre, pragmatic, registry-based randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: On the basis of low-quality evidence, international critical care nutrition guidelines recommend a wide range of protein doses. The effect of delivering high-dose protein during critical illness is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that a higher dose of protein provided to critically ill patients would improve their clinical outcomes. METHODS: This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline. INTERPRETATION: Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores. FUNDING: None.

Nutrition support practices across the care continuum in a single centre critical care unit during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic - A comparison of VV-ECMO and non-ECMO patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high nutrition risk. This study aimed to describe the nutrition support practices in a single centre critical care unit during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. Practices were explored from ICU admission to post-ICU follow-up clinic and patients who received veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) were compared to those who did not. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included COVID-19 positive, adult ICU patients who were mechanically ventilated for ≥72 h. Data were collected from ICU admission until the time of post-ICU clinic. For in-ICU data, results are compared between patients who did and did not receive VV-ECMO. RESULTS: 252 patients were included (VV-ECMO n = 58). Adequate energy and protein was delivered in 193 (76.6%) patients during their ICU admission with no differences between those who did and did not receive VV-ECMO (44 (75.9%) vs. 149 (76.8%)). Parenteral nutrition only being required in 12 (4.8%) patients. Following stepdown to the ward 77 (70%) patients required ongoing enteral nutrition support, and 74 (66.7%) required a texture modified diet or were NBM. Following hospital discharge, nearly a third of ICU survivors (28.4%) were referred for dietetic input. The most common referral reason was loss of weight. Breathlessness and fatigue were the most commonly reported nutrition impact symptoms experienced following hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Results show it is possible to reach nutritional adequacy for most patients and that neither VV-ECMO nor proning were barriers to nutritional adequacy. Nutritional issues for patients who were critically ill with COVID-19 persist following stepdown to ward level and into the community and strategies to manage this require further investigation.

Nutrition support practices across the care continuum in a single centre critical care unit during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic – A comparison of VV-ECMO and non-ECMO patients

Background & aims Critically ill patients with COVID-19 are at high nutrition risk. This study aimed to describe the nutrition support practices in a single centre critical care unit during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. Practices were explored from ICU admission to post-ICU follow-up clinic and patients who received veno-venous extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) were compared to those who did not. Methods This retrospective observational study included COVID-19 positive, adult ICU patients who were mechanically ventilated for ≥72 h. Data were collected from ICU admission until the time of post-ICU clinic. For in-ICU data, results are compared between patients who did and did not receive VV-ECMO. Results 252 patients were included (VV-ECMO n = 58). Adequate energy and protein was delivered in 193 (76.6%) patients during their ICU admission with no differences between those who did and did not receive VV-ECMO (44 (75.9%) vs. 149 (76.8%)). Parenteral nutrition only being required in 12 (4.8%) patients. Following stepdown to the ward 77 (70%) patients required ongoing enteral nutrition support, and 74 (66.7%) required a texture modified diet or were NBM. Following hospital discharge, nearly a third of ICU survivors (28.4%) were referred for dietetic input. The most common referral reason was loss of weight. Breathlessness and fatigue were the most commonly reported nutrition impact symptoms experienced following hospital discharge. Conclusion Results show it is possible to reach nutritional adequacy for most patients and that neither VV-ECMO nor proning were barriers to nutritional adequacy. Nutritional issues for patients who were critically ill with COVID-19 persist following stepdown to ward level and into the community and strategies to manage this require further investigation.

Nutrition in postacute rehabilitation of COVID-19 survivors.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at high nutrition risk and a significant number are likely to require ongoing nutrition rehabilitation. Here, we summarise guideline recommendations for nutritional rehabilitation in postacute COVID-19 infection, outline the rationale for nutrition rehabilitation for survivors of postacute COVID-19 in patients admitted to both the hospital ward and intensive care unit and discuss current evidence for interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: Several guidelines exist outlining recommendations for nutrition care in hospital, critical care and the community setting. All have common themes pertaining to the importance of nutrition screening, nutrition assessment, appropriate choice of intervention and continuity of care across settings. While a plethora of data exists highlighting the high nutrition risk and prevalence of malnutrition in this population, minimal interventional studies have been published. SUMMARY: Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 are at high nutrition risk. Future studies should focus on nutrition interventions for the rehabilitation period and determine whether nutrition needs differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 survivors.

Mixed methods evaluation of the impact of the COVID-19 ICU remote-learning rehabilitation course for frontline health professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

Background: Optimising outcomes for critically ill patients with COVID-19 patients requires early interdisciplinary rehabilitation. As admission numbers soared through the pandemic, the redeployed workforce needed rapid, effective training to deliver these rehabilitation interventions. Methods: The COVID-19 ICU Remote-Learning Rehab Course (CIRLC-rehab) is a one-day interdisciplinary course developed after the success of CIRLC-acute. The aim of CIRLC-rehab was to rapidly train healthcare professionals to deliver physical, nutritional and psychological rehabilitation strategies in the ICU/acute setting. The course used blended learning with interactive tutorials delivered by shielding critical care professionals. CIRLC-rehab was evaluated through a mixed-methods approach, including questionnaires, and follow-up semi-structured interviews to evaluate perceived impact on clinical practice. Quantitative data are reported as n (%) and means (SD). Inductive descriptive thematic analysis with methodological triangulation was used to analyse the qualitative data from the questionnaires and interviews. Results: 805 candidates completed CIRLC-rehab. 627 (78.8%) completed the post-course questionnaire. 95% (n = 596) found CIRLC-rehab extremely or very useful and 96.0% (n = 602) said they were very likely to recommend the course to colleagues. Overall confidence rose from 2.78/5 to 4.14/5. The course promoted holistic and humanised care, facilitated informal networks, promoted interdisciplinary working and equipped the candidates with practical rehabilitation strategies that they implemented into clinical practice. Conclusion: This pragmatic solution to educating redeployed staff during a pandemic increased candidates' confidence in the rehabilitation of critically ill patients. There was also evidence of modifications to clinical care utilising learning from the course that subjectively facilitated holistic and humanised rehabilitation, combined with the importance of recognising the humanity, of those working in ICU settings themselves. Whilst these data are self-reported, we believe that this work demonstrates the real-term benefits of remote, scalable and rapid educational delivery.