METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a multicenter trial that investigated the effectiveness of a promotility drug. Pharmacokinetic markers of GE (3-O-methylglucose [3-OMG] and acetaminophen) were correlated with GRV measurements. High GRV was defined as one episode of >400 ml or two consecutive episodes of >250 ml, and delayed GE was defined as <20th percentile of the pharmacokinetic GE marker that had the strongest correlation with GE.
RESULTS: Of 77 patients, 8 (10.4%) had high GRV, and 15 (19.5%) had delayed GE. The 3-OMG concentration at 60 min had the strongest correlation with GRV (ρ = -0.631), and high GRV had low sensitivity (46.7%) but high specificity (98.4%) in discriminating delayed GE. The positive (87.5%) and negative (88.4%) predictive values were similar. Compared with medical patients, surgical patients (n = 14, 18.2%), had a significantly higher incidence of high GRV (29% vs 6%, P = .032) and a trend toward delayed GE (36% vs 16%, P = .132).
CONCLUSION: GRV reflects GE, and high GRV is an acceptable surrogate marker of delayed GE. From our preliminary observation, surgical patients may have a higher risk of high GRV and delayed GE. In summary, GRV should be monitored to determine whether complex investigations or therapeutic interventions are warranted.
DATA SOURCES: Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials.
STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials testing IV vitamin C in critically ill patients.
DATA ABSTRACTION: Two independent reviewers abstracted patient characteristics, treatment details, and clinical outcomes.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifteen studies involving 2,490 patients were identified. Compared with placebo, IV vitamin C administration is associated with a trend toward reduced overall mortality (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75-1.00; p = 0.06; test for heterogeneity I2 = 6%). High-dose IV vitamin C was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (relative risk, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.96; p = 0.03), whereas low-dose IV vitamin C had no effect (relative risk, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.07; p = 0.46; test for subgroup differences, p = 0.14). IV vitamin C monotherapy was associated with a significant reduction in overall mortality (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83; p = 0.006), whereas there was no effect with IV vitamin C combined therapy. No trial reported an increase in adverse events related to IV vitamin C.
CONCLUSIONS: IV vitamin C administration appears safe and may be associated with a trend toward reduction in overall mortality. High-dose IV vitamin C monotherapy may be associated with improved overall mortality, and further randomized controlled trials are warranted.
DATA SOURCES: None.
STUDY SELECTION: Current literature describing the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
DATA EXTRACTION: Best practices for conducting, reporting, and appraising systematic review were summarized.
DATA SYNTHESIS: A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant original research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Critical appraisal methods address both the credibility (quality of conduct) and rate the confidence in the quality of summarized evidence from a systematic review. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews-2 tool is a widely used practical tool to appraise the conduct of a systematic review. Confidence in estimates of effect is determined by assessing for risk of bias, inconsistency of results, imprecision, indirectness of evidence, and publication bias.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews are transparent and reproducible summaries of research and conclusions drawn from them are only as credible and reliable as their development process and the studies which form the systematic review. Applying evidence from a systematic review to patient care considers whether the results can be directly applied, whether all important outcomes have been considered, and if the benefits are worth potential harms and costs.
METHODS: This single-center prospective observational study was conducted in a general ICU. Mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients (age ≥18 years) without pre-existing systemic neuromuscular diseases and expected to stay for ≥96 h in the ICU were included. US measurements were performed within 48 h of ICU admission (baseline), at day 7, day 14 of ICU stay and at ICU discharge (if stay >14 days). Quadriceps muscle layer thickness (QMLT), rectus femoris cross sectional area (RFCSA), vastus intermedius pennation angle (PA) and fascicle length (FL), and rectus femoris echogenicity (mean and standard deviation [SD]) were measured. Patients' next-of-kin were interviewed by using established questionnaires for their pre-hospitalization nutritional risk (nutrition risk screening-2002) and functional status (SARC-F, clinical frailty scale [CFS], Katz activities of daily living [ADL] and Lawton Instrumental ADL).
RESULTS: Ninety patients were recruited. A total of 86, 53, 24 and 10 US measures were analyzed, which were performed at a median of 1, 7, 14 and 22 days from ICU admission, respectively. QMLT, RFCSA and PA reduced significantly over time. The overall trend of change of FL was not significant. The only independent predictor of 60-day mortality was the change of QMLT from baseline to day 7 (adjusted odds ratio 0.95 for every 1% less QMLT loss, 95% confidence interval 0.91-0.99; p = 0.02). Baseline measures of high nutrition risk (modified nutrition risk in critically ill ≥5), sarcopenia (SARC-F ≥4) and frailty (CFS ≥5) were associated with lower baseline QMLT, RFCSA and PA and higher 60-day mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: Every 1% loss of QMLT over the first week of critical illness was associated with 5% higher odds of 60-day mortality. SARC-F, CFS and mNUTRIC are associated with quadriceps muscle status and 60-day mortality and may serve as a potential simple and indirect measures of premorbid muscle status at ICU admission.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL from database inception through April 1, 2021.We included RCTs of (1) adult (age ≥ 18) critically ill patients that (2) compared higher vs lower protein with (3) similar energy intake between groups, and (4) reported clinical and/or patient-centered outcomes. We excluded studies on immunonutrition. Two authors screened and conducted quality assessment independently and in duplicate. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes).
RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs were included (n = 1731). Sixteen studies used primarily the enteral route to deliver protein. Intervention was started within 72 h of ICU admission in sixteen studies. The intervention lasted between 3 and 28 days. In 11 studies that reported weight-based nutrition delivery, the pooled mean protein and energy received in higher and lower protein groups were 1.31 ± 0.48 vs 0.90 ± 0.30 g/kg and 19.9 ± 6.9 versus 20.1 ± 7.1 kcal/kg, respectively. Higher vs lower protein did not significantly affect overall mortality [risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.10, p = 0.34] or other clinical or patient-centered outcomes. In 5 small studies, higher protein significantly attenuated muscle loss (MD -3.44% per week, 95% CI -4.99 to -1.90; p
METHODS: RCTs that compared probiotics or synbiotics to usual care or placebo and reported clinical and diarrheal outcomes were searched in 4 electronic databases from inception to March 8, 2022 without language restriction. Four reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the study qualities using the Critical Care Nutrition (CCN) Methodological Quality Scoring System. Random-effect meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were used to synthesize the results. The primary outcome was ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). The main subgroup analysis compared the effects of higher versus lower quality studies (based on median CCN score).
RESULTS: Seventy-five studies with 71 unique trials (n = 8551) were included. In the overall analysis, probiotics significantly reduced VAP incidence (risk ratio [RR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.88; I2 = 65%; 16 studies). However, such benefits were demonstrated only in lower (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32, 0.69; I2 = 44%; 7 studies) but not higher quality studies (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73, 1.08; I2 = 43%; 9 studies), with significant test for subgroup differences (p = 0.004). Additionally, TSA showed that the VAP benefits of probiotics in the overall and subgroup analyses were type-1 errors. In higher quality trials, TSA found that future trials are unlikely to demonstrate any benefits of probiotics on infectious complications and diarrhea. Probiotics had higher adverse events than control (pooled risk difference: 0.01, 95% CI 0.01, 0.02; I2 = 0%; 22 studies).
CONCLUSION: High-quality RCTs did not support a beneficial effect of probiotics on clinical or diarrheal outcomes in critically ill patients. Given the lack of benefits and the increased incidence of adverse events, probiotics should not be routinely administered to critically ill patients.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022302278.
METHODS: RCTs evaluating IVVC in adult critically ill patients were included. Four databases were searched from inception to 22 June 2022 without language restrictions. The primary outcome was overall mortality. Random effect meta-analysis was performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio. TSA for mortality was performed using the DerSimonian-Laird random effect model, alpha 5%, beta 10%, and relative risk reduction (RRR) of 30%, 25%, and 20%.
RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs (n = 2130). IVVC monotherapy is associated with significant reduction in overall mortality [risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.89; p = 0.002; I2 = 42%]. This finding is supported by TSA using RRR of 30% and 25%, and sensitivity analysis using fixed-effect meta-analysis. However, the certainty of our mortality finding was rated low using GRADE due to the serious risk of bias and inconsistency. In a priori subgroup analyses, we found no differences between single vs multicenter, higher (≥ 10,000 mg/day) vs lower dose and sepsis vs non-sepsis trials. Post-hoc, we found no differences in subgroup analysis of earlier ( 4 days) vs shorter treatment duration, and low vs other risk of bias studies. IVVC may have the greatest benefit in trials that enrolled patients above (i.e., > 37.5%; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.79) vs below (i.e., ≤ 37.5%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.68-1.16) median control group mortality (test for subgroup differences: p = 0.06), and TSA supported this.
CONCLUSIONS: IVVC monotherapy may be associated with mortality benefits in critically ill patients, particularly in patients with a high risk of dying. Given the low certainty of evidence, this potentially life-saving therapy warrants further studies to identify the optimal timing, dosage, treatment duration, and patient population that will benefit most from IVVC monotherapy. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022323880. Registered 7th May 2022.
METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL was conducted to identify all randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients published from inception to June 2021, which investigated clinical omega-6 sparing effects. Two independent reviewers extracted bias risk, treatment details, patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. Random effect meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS: 1054 studies were identified in our electronic search, 136 trials were assessed for eligibility and 26 trials with 1733 critically ill patients were included. The median methodologic score was 9 out of 14 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 7, 10). Omega-6 FA sparing PN in comparison with traditional lipid emulsions did not decrease overall mortality (20 studies; risk ratio [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.76, 1.10; p = 0.34) but hospital length of stay was substantially reduced (6 studies; weighted mean difference [WMD] - 6.88; 95% CI - 11.27, - 2.49; p = 0.002). Among the different lipid emulsions, fish oil (FO) containing PN reduced the length of intensive care (8 studies; WMD - 3.53; 95% CI - 6.16, - 0.90; p = 0.009) and rate of infectious complications (4 studies; RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44, 0.95; p = 0.03). When FO was administered as a stand-alone medication outside PN, potential mortality benefits were observed compared to standard care.
CONCLUSION: Overall, these findings highlight distinctive omega-6 sparing effects attributed to PN. Among the different lipid emulsions, FO in combination with PN or as a stand-alone treatment may have the greatest clinical impact. Trial registration PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021259238).
METHODS: For this SRMA of randomized controlled trials (RCT), electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) were searched systematically from inception to January 2024 and updated in June 2024. Trials investigating clinical effects of fiber-supplemented EN versus placebo or usual care in adult critically ill patients were selected. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Random-effect meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were conducted. The primary outcome was overall mortality, and one of the secondary outcomes was diarrhea incidence. Subgroup analyses were also performed for both outcomes.
RESULTS: Twenty studies with 1405 critically ill patients were included. In conventional meta-analysis, fiber-supplemented EN was associated with a significant reduction of overall mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47, 0.92, p = 0.01, I2 = 0%; 12 studies) and diarrhea incidence (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51, 0.96, p = 0.03, I2 = 51%; 11 studies). However, both outcomes were assessed to have very serious risk of bias, and, according to TSA, a type-1 error cannot be ruled out. No subgroup differences were found for the primary outcome.
CONCLUSION: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that fiber-supplemented EN has clinical benefits. High-quality multicenter RCTs with large sample sizes are needed to substantiate any firm recommendation for its routine use in this group of patients. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023492829.
METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a single-center prospective observational study that enrolled mechanically ventilated adults with expected ≥96 hours ICU stay. SARC-F and CFS questionnaires were administered to patient's next-of-kin and mNUTRIC were calculated. Calf-circumference was measured at the right calf. Nutrition data was collected from nursing record. The high-risk scores (mNUTRIC ≥5, SARC-CALF >10 or CFS ≥4) of these variables were combined to become the NUTRIC-SF score (range: 0-3).
RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were analyzed. Multiple logistic model demonstrated increasing mNUTRIC score was independently associated with 60-day mortality while increasing SARC-CALF and CFS showed a strong trend towards higher 60-day mortality. Discriminative ability of NUTRIC-SF for 60-day mortality is better than it's component (AUROC 0.722, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.677-0.868). Every increment of 300 kcal/day and 30 g/day is associated with a trend towards higher rate of discharge alive for high [≥2; Adjusted Hazard Ratio 1.453 (95% CI 0.991-2.130) for energy, 1.503 (95% CI 0.936-2.413) for protein] but not low (<2) NUTRIC-SF score.
CONCLUSION: NUTRIC-SF score may be a clinically relevant risk stratification tool in the ICU. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central were searched from inception to February 10, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION: RCTs evaluating the effect of enteral or IV glutamine supplementation alone in severe adult burn patients were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, burn injury characteristics, description of the intervention between groups, adverse events, and clinical outcomes.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Random effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) for mortality and infectious complications were performed. Ten RCTs (1,577 patients) were included. We observed no significant effect of glutamine supplementation on overall mortality (RR, 0.65, 95% CI, 0.33-1.28; p = 0.21), infectious complications (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.63-1.09; p = 0.18), or other secondary outcomes. In subgroup analyses, we observed no significant effects based on administration route or burn severity. We did observe a significant subgroup effect between single and multicenter RCTs in which glutamine significantly reduced mortality and infectious complications in singe-center RCTs but not in multicenter RCTs. However, TSA showed that the pooled results of single-center RCTs were type 1 errors and further trials would be futile.
CONCLUSIONS: Glutamine supplementation, regardless of administration, does not appear to improve clinical outcomes in severely adult burned patients.
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.
METHODS: From personal files, citation searching, and three databases searched up to 29-5-2023, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult critically ill patients that compared higher vs lower protein delivery with similar energy delivery between groups and reported clinical and/or patient-centred outcomes. We conducted random-effect meta-analyses and subsequently trial sequential analyses (TSA) to control for type-1 and type-2 errors. The main subgroup analysis investigated studies with and without combined early physical rehabilitation intervention. A subgroup analysis of AKI vs no/not known AKI was also conducted.
RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs (n = 3303) with protein delivery of 1.49 ± 0.48 vs 0.92 ± 0.30 g/kg/d were included. Higher protein delivery was not associated with overall mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88-1.11; I2 = 0%; 21 studies; low certainty) and other clinical outcomes. In 2 small studies, higher protein combined with early physical rehabilitation showed a trend towards improved self-reported quality-of-life physical function measurements at day-90 (standardized mean difference 0.40, 95% CI - 0.04 to 0.84; I2 = 30%). In the AKI subgroup, higher protein delivery significantly increased mortality (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.11-1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies; confirmed by TSA with high certainty, and the number needed to harm is 7). Higher protein delivery also significantly increased serum urea (mean difference 2.31 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.64-2.97; I2 = 0%; 7 studies).
CONCLUSION: Higher, compared with lower protein delivery, does not appear to affect clinical outcomes in general critically ill patients but may increase mortality rates in patients with AKI. Further investigation of the combined early physical rehabilitation intervention in non-AKI patients is warranted.
PROSPERO ID: CRD42023441059.