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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial that assesses the effect of implementing a feeding protocol on mortality in critically ill patients. Patients who stayed in the ICUs for at least 7 days and received exclusive EN were included in this analysis. Multivariable Cox hazard regression models and restricted cubic spline models were used to assess the relationship between the different doses of EN delivery and 28-day mortality. Subgroups with varying lactate levels at enrollment were additionally analyzed to address the potential confounding effect brought in by the presence of shock-related hypoperfusion.

RESULTS: Overall, 1322 patients were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) daily energy and protein delivery during the first week of enrollment were 14.6 (10.3-19.6) kcal/kg and 0.6 (0.4-0.8) g/kg, respectively. An increase of 5 kcal/kg energy delivery was associated with a significant reduction (approximately 14%) in 28-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.865, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.768-0.974, P = 0.016). For protein intake, a 0.2 g/kg increase was associated with a similar mortality reduction with an adjusted HR of 0.868 (95% CI 0.770-0.979). However, the benefits associated with enhanced nutrition delivery could be observed in patients with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L (adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.674-0.960) for energy delivery and adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.672-0.962) for protein delivery, respectively), but not in those > 2 mmol/L.

CONCLUSIONS: During the first week of critical illness, enhanced nutrition delivery is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN, only for those with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L.

METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the EFFORT Protein trial, we investigated the effect of high versus usual protein dose (≥ 2.2 vs. ≤ 1.2 g/kg body weight/day) on time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) and 60-day mortality and in different subgroups in critically ill patients with AKI as defined by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria within 7 days of ICU admission. The associations of protein dose with incidence and duration of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) were also investigated.

RESULTS: Of the 1329 randomized patients, 312 developed AKI and were included in this analysis (163 in the high and 149 in the usual protein dose group). High protein was associated with a slower time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.4-0.8) and higher 60-day mortality (relative risk 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.8). Effect modification was not statistically significant for any subgroup, and no subgroups suggested a beneficial effect of higher protein, although the harmful effect of higher protein target appeared to disappear in patients who received kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Protein dose was not significantly associated with the incidence of AKI and KRT or duration of KRT.

CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with AKI, high protein may be associated with worse outcomes in all AKI stages. Recommendation of higher protein dosing in AKI patients should be carefully re-evaluated to avoid potential harmful effects especially in patients who were not treated with KRT.

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.

METHODS: Patients were selected based on the availability of selenium biomarker information. Four subgroups were defined according to the patient's baseline status, including those with normal kidney function, reduced kidney function, selenium deficiency, and submaximal GPx3 activity.

RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-four patients were included in this analysis. Overall, higher serum concentrations of selenium, selenoprotein P (SELENOP) and GPx3 were correlated with less organ injury. GPx3 activity at baseline was predictive of 6-month survival (AUC 0.73; p = 0.03). While selenium treatment elevated serum selenium and SELENOP concentrations but not GPx3 activity in the full patient cohort, subgroup analyses revealed that GPx3 activity increased in patients with reduced kidney function, selenium deficiency and low to moderate GPx3 activity. Clinical outcomes did not vary between selenium treatment and placebo in any of these subgroups, though the study was not powered to conclusively detect differences in outcomes.

METHODS: This protocol was drafted in agreement with the ROBUST-statement, and is submitted for publication before database lock and primary data analysis. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life as measured by the EQ-5D-5L health utility score and is longitudinally assessed. Secondary outcomes comprise the 6-min walking test and handgrip strength over the entire follow-up period (longitudinal analyses), and 60-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and EQ-5D-5L health utility scores at 30, 90 and 180 days (cross-sectional). All analyses will primarily be performed under weakly informative priors. When available, informative priors elicited from contemporary literature will also be incorporated under alternative scenarios. In all other cases, objectively formulated skeptical and enthusiastic priors will be defined to assess the robustness of our results. Relevant identified subgroups were: patients with acute kidney injury, severe multi-organ failure and patients with or without sepsis. Results will be presented as absolute risk differences, mean differences, and odds ratios, with accompanying 95% credible intervals. Posterior probabilities will be estimated for clinically important benefit and harm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study constituted a nested sub-study of the SUSTAIN CSX trial, a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial to investigate the impact of high-dose selenium supplementation on high-risk cardiac surgery patients' postoperative recovery. Functional recovery was assessed by 6-min walk distance, Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Barthel Index questionnaires.

KEY FINDINGS: 174 patients were included in this sub-study. The mean age (SD) was 67.3 (8.9) years, and 78.7 % of the patients were male. The mean (SD) predicted 30-day mortality by the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score was 12.6 % (9.4 %). There was no difference at hospital discharge and after three months in the 6-min walk distance between the selenium and placebo groups (131 m [IQR: not performed - 269] vs. 160 m [IQR: not performed - 252], p = 0.80 and 400 m [IQR: 299-461] vs. 375 m [IQR: 65-441], p = 0.48). The SF-36 and Barthel Index assessments also revealed no clinically meaningful differences between the selenium and placebo groups.