How do guideline recommended energy targets compare with measured energy expenditure in critically ill adults with obesity: A systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients with obesity have unique and complex nutritional needs, with clinical practice guidelines conflicting regarding recommended energy targets. The aim of this systematic review was to 1) describe measured resting energy expenditure (mREE) reported in the literature and; 2) compare mREE to predicted energy targets using the European (ESPEN) and American (ASPEN) guideline recommendations when indirect calorimetry is not available in critically ill patients with obesity. METHODS: The protocol was registered apriori and literature was searched until 17th March, 2022. Original studies were included if they reported mREE using indirect calorimetry in critically ill patients with obesity (BMI≥30 kg/m2). Group-level mREE data was reported as per the primary publication using mean ± standard deviation or median [interquartile range]. Where individual patient data was available, Bland-Altman analysis was used to assess mean bias (95% limits of agreement) between guideline recommendations and mREE targets (i.e. ASPEN for BMI 30-50, 11-14 kcal/kg actual weight compared to 70% mREE and ESPEN 20-25 kcal/kg adjusted weight compared to 100% mREE). Accuracy was assessed by the percentage (%) of estimates within ±10% of mREE targets. RESULTS: After searching 8019 articles, 24 studies were included. mREE ranged from 1607 ± 385 to 2919 [2318-3362]kcal and 12-32kcal/actual body weight. For the ASPEN recommendations of 11-14 kcal/kg, a mean bias of -18% (-50% to +13%) and 4% (-36% to +44%) was observed, respectively (n = 104). For the ESPEN recommendations 20-25 kcal/kg, a bias of -22% (-51% to +7%) and -4% (-43% to +34%), was observed, respectively (n = 114). The guideline recommendations were able to accurately predict mREE targets on 30%-39% occasions (11-14 kcal/kg actual) and 15%-45% occasions (20-25 kcal/kg adjusted), for ASPEN and ESPEN recommendations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Measured energy expenditure in critically ill patients with obesity is variable. Energy targets generated using predictive equations recommended in both the ASPEN and ESPEN clinical guidelines have poor agreement with mREE and are frequently not able to accurately predict within ±10% of mREE, most commonly underestimating energy needs.

Protocol summary and statistical analysis plan for Intensive Nutrition Therapy comparEd to usual care iN criTically ill adults (INTENT): a phase II randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: It is plausible that a longer duration of nutrition intervention may have a greater impact on clinical and patient-centred outcomes. The Intensive Nutrition care Therapy comparEd to usual care iN criTically ill adults (INTENT) trial will determine if a whole hospital nutrition intervention is feasible and will deliver more total energy compared with usual care in critically ill patients with at least one organ system failure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prospective, multicentre, unblinded, parallel-group, phase II randomised controlled trial (RCT) conducted in 23 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand. Mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients with at least one organ failure who have been in intensive care unit (ICU) for 72-120 hours and meet all of the inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria will be randomised to receive either intensive or usual nutrition care. INTENT started recruitment in October 2018 and a sample size of 240 participants is anticipated to be recruited in 2022. The study period is from randomisation to hospital discharge or study day 28, whichever occurs first, and the primary outcome is daily energy delivery from nutrition therapy. Secondary outcomes include daily energy and protein delivery during ICU and in the post-ICU period, duration of ventilation, ventilator-free days, total bloodstream infection rate and length of hospital stay. All other outcomes are considered tertiary and results will be analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been received in Australia (Alfred Hospital Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/101) and Human Research Ethics Committee of the Northern Territory Department of Health (2019-3372)) and New Zealand (Northern A Health and Disability Ethics Committee (18/NTA/222). Results will be disseminated in an international peer-reviewed journal(s), at scientific meetings and via social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03292237.