The Association Between Malnutrition and High Protein Treatment on Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EFFORT Protein Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Preexisting malnutrition in critically ill patients is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Malnutrition can be diagnosed with the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition using parameters such as weight loss, muscle wasting, and BMI. International critical care nutrition guidelines recommend high protein treatment to improve clinical outcomes in critically ill patients diagnosed with preexisting malnutrition. However, this recommendation is based on expert opinion. RESEARCH QUESTION: In critically ill patients, what is the association between preexisting malnutrition and time to discharge alive (TTDA), and does high protein treatment modify this association? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This multicenter randomized controlled trial involving 16 countries was designed to investigate the effects of high vs usual protein treatment in 1,301 critically ill patients. The primary outcome was TTDA. Multivariable regression was used to identify if preexisting malnutrition was associated with TTDA and if protein delivery modified their association. RESULTS: The prevalence of preexisting malnutrition was 43.8%, and the cumulative incidence of live hospital discharge by day 60 was 41.2% vs 52.9% in the groups with and without preexisting malnutrition, respectively. The average protein delivery in the high vs usual treatment groups was 1.6 g/kg per day vs 0.9 g/kg per day. Preexisting malnutrition was independently associated with slower TTDA (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98). However, high protein treatment in patients with and without preexisting malnutrition was not associated with TTDA (adjusted hazard ratios of 0.84 [95% CI, 0.63-1.11] and 0.97 [95% CI, 0.77-1.21]). Furthermore, no effect modification was observed (ratio of adjusted hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20). INTERPRETATION: Malnutrition was associated with slower TTDA, but high protein treatment did not modify the association. These findings challenge current international critical care nutrition guidelines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03160547; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

A Comparison of High and Usual Protein Dosing in Critically Ill Patients With Obesity: A Post Hoc Analysis of an International, Pragmatic, Single-Blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Across guidelines, protein dosing for critically ill patients with obesity varies considerably. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether this population would benefit from higher doses of protein. DESIGN: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicenter, pragmatic, registry-based randomized trial. SETTING: Eighty-five adult ICUs across 16 countries. PATIENTS: Patients with obesity defined as a body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 ( n = 425). INTERVENTIONS: In the primary study, patients were randomized into a high-dose (≥ 2.2 g/kg/d) or usual-dose protein group (≤ 1.2 g/kg/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Protein intake was monitored for up to 28 days, and outcomes (time to discharge alive [TTDA], 60-d mortality, days of mechanical ventilation [MV], hospital, and ICU length of stay [LOS]) were recorded until 60 days post-randomization. Of the 1301 patients in the primary study, 425 had a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m 2 . After adjusting for sites and covariates, we observed a nonsignificant slower rate of TTDA with higher protein that ruled out a clinically important benefit (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.58-1.05; p = 0.10). We found no evidence of difference in TTDA between protein groups when subgroups with different classes of obesity or patients with and without various nutritional and frailty risk variables were examined, even after the removal of patients with baseline acute kidney injury. Overall, 60-day mortality rates were 31.5% and 28.2% in the high protein and usual protein groups, respectively (risk difference, 3.3%; 95% CI, -5.4 to 12.1; p = 0.46). Duration of MV and LOS in hospital and ICU were not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with obesity, higher protein doses did not improve clinical outcomes, including those with higher nutritional and frailty risk.

When is enteral nutrition indicated?

Enteral nutrition (EN) is a vital component of nutrition around the world. EN allows for delivery of nutrients to those who cannot maintain adequate nutrition by oral intake alone. Common questions regarding EN are when to initiate and in what scenarios it is safe. The answers to these questions are often complex and require an evidence-based approach. The Board of Directors of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) established an Enteral Nutrition Committtee to address the important questions surrounding the indications for EN. Consensus recommendations were established based on eight extremely clinically relevant questions regarding EN indications as deemed by the Enteral Nutrition Committee. These consensus recommendations may act as a guide for clinicians and stakeholders on difficult questions pertaining to indications for EN. This paper was approved by the ASPEN Board of Directors.

Dispelling Myths and Unfounded Practices About Enteral Nutrition.

Many protocols and steps in the process of enteral nutrition (EN) use are not overly supported with strong research and have been done the same way over many years without questioning the use of best-practices evidence. This article reports many of the myths and unfounded practices surrounding EN and attempts to refute those myths with current evidence. These practices include those about enteral access devices, formulas, enteral administration, and complications.