ArticleNutrients2024
Characterizing and Predicting Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Low or High Protein Doses with Moderate Energy Support: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFinding the best energy and protein dose and timing for critically ill patients remains challenging. Distinct populations may react differently to protein load. This study aimed to characterize and predict outcomes of critically ill patients who received moderate energy and high or low protein doses during their stay in the intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsThe cohort included 646 adult patients (70% men and 30% women) hospitalized in Beilinson Hospital ICU (Petah Tikva, Israel) for over 5 days between 2011 and 2018. Patients received 10-20 kcal/kg/day and were classified into two groups: low (LP) and high (HP) protein support (≤1 g/kg/day vs. >1 g/kg/day), the LP group comprising 531 patients (82%) and the HP group 115 patients (18%). Multiple logistic regression was used to describe associations between patients' characteristics and 90-day survival in the LP and HP groups.
resultsAmong LP, increased age, APACHE II, and receiving supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) were associated with decreased survival (OR = 0.986, 95% CI [0.973, 0.999]; OR = 0.915, 95% CI [0.886, 0.944], OR = 0.579, 95% CI [0.366, 0.917]). Trauma admission was associated with increased survival (OR = 1.826, 95% CI [1.001, 3.329]). Among HP, increased age was associated with decreased survival (OR = 0.956, 95% CI [0.924, 0.998]). Higher BMI was associated with improved survival (OR = 1.137, 95% CI [1.028, 1.258]). Likewise, in the HP group, the BMI of elderly survivors was higher compared to non-survivors (27.1 ± 6.2 vs. 24.7 ± 4.8, t (113) = 2.3,
conclusionsOur results show that in patients with moderate energy support and low protein administration, survivors were younger, with a lower APACHE II score, mainly suffering from trauma and without renal failure. In the patients receiving high protein support, younger patients with a high BMI not suffering from sepsis were more likely to survive. We suggest confirming these findings with prospective RCTs.
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.