ArticleCritical care (London, England)2019
Safety and efficacy of volume-based feeding in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults using the 'Protein & Energy Requirements Fed for Every Critically ill patient every Time' (PERFECT) protocol: a before-and-after study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a Staged Enteral Nutrition Nursing Pathway Based on Dynamic Assessment of Tolerance and Aspiration Risk vs Usual Care on Feeding Intolerance in Older Adult Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke and Dysphagia: A Single-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026Trial
- A Risk-Stratified, Volume-Based Plus Enteral Nutrition Protocol with Semi-Elemental Formula in Critically Ill Surgical Patients: A Before-and-After Implementation Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Predictive role of glycocalyx components and MMP-9 in cardiopulmonary bypass patients for ICU stay.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Nutritional management of children with acute kidney injury-clinical practice recommendations from the Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2023Review
- Optimizing enteral nutrition delivery by implementing volume-based feeding protocol for critically ill patients: an updated meta-analysis and systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Review
- Substandard feeding in children undergoing mechanical ventilation in pediatric intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study in China.Belitung nursing journal · 2023Article
- Barriers to Delivery of Enteral Nutrition in Intensive Care Settings in Saudi Arabia: A Comparative Study of the Perceptions of Health Care Providers Working in Adult and Paediatric ICUs.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2022Article
- Prevention of underfeeding during enteral nutrition after gastrectomy in adult patients with gastric cancer: an evidence utilization project.JBI evidence implementation · 2020Article
- Metabolic and Nutritional Characteristics of Long-Stay Critically Ill Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderfeeding in critical illness is common and associated with poor outcomes. According to large prospective hospital studies, volume-based feeding (VBF) safely and effectively improves energy and protein delivery to critically ill patients compared to traditional rate-based feeding (RBF) and might improve patient outcomes. A before-and-after study was designed to evaluate the safety, efficacy and clinical outcomes associated with VBF compared to RBF in a single intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsThe sample included consecutively admitted critically ill adults, mechanically ventilated for at least 72 h and fed enterally for a minimum of 48 h. The first cohort (n = 46) was fed using RBF, the second (n = 46) using VBF, and observed for 7 days, or until extubation or death. Statistical comparison of percentage feed volume, energy and protein delivered, plus indices of feed intolerance, were the primary outcomes of interest. Secondary observations included ventilation period, mortality, and length of ICU stay (LOICUS).
resultsGroups were comparable in baseline clinical and demographic characteristics and nutrition practices. Volume delivered to the VBF group increased significantly by 11.2% (p ≤ 0.001), energy by 13.4% (p ≤ 0.001) and protein by 8.4% (p = 0.02), compared to the RBF group. In the VBF group, patients meeting > 90% of energy requirements increased significantly from 47.8 to 84.8% (p ≤ 0.001); those meeting > 90% of protein requirements changed from 56.5 to 73.9% (p = 0.134). VBF did not increase symptoms of feed intolerance. Adjusted binomial logistic regression found each additional 1% of prescribed feed delivered decreased the odds of vomiting by 0.942 (5.8%), 95% CI [0.900-0.985], p = 0.010. No differences in mortality or LOICUS were identified. Kaplan-Meier found a significantly increased extubation rate in patients receiving > 90% of protein requirements compared to those meeting < 80%, (p = 0.006). Adjusted Cox regression found the daily probability of being extubated tripled in patients receiving > 90% of their protein needs compared to the group receiving < 80%, hazard ratio 3.473, p = 0.021, 95% CI [1.205-10.014].
conclusionVBF safely and effectively increased the delivery of energy and protein to critically ill patients. Increased protein delivery may improve extubation rate which has positive patient-centred and financial implications, warranting larger confirmatory trials. This investigation adds weight to the ICU literature supporting VBF, and the growing evidence which advocates for enhanced protein delivery to improve patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.