Evidence Hub

The efficacy of high-protein nutritional support on mortality, clinical outcomes, and nutritional adequacy in critically ill patients: a double‑center randomized controlled trial

M. Badpeyma, Alireza Sedaghat, A. B. Moghaddam, Majid khadem-Rezaiyan, F. Sistanian, M. Bagherniya, G. Ranjbar, F. Fazeli et al.

Nutrition and Metabolism, 2025

56 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Although nutritional support is crucial in intensive care, the impact of protein intake remains unclear, emphasizing the need for further randomized controlled trials. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of high-protein versus conventional-protein nutritional support on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, with 60-day mortality as the primary endpoint. In this double-blind, two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, 56 adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit [1] were enrolled. Participants received either high-protein support (2.2 g/kg/day, actual body weight [ABW]) or conventional-protein support (1.0 g/kg/day, ABW) for 12 days. Both groups targeted 25 kcal/kg/day energy intake. Patients and data analysts were blinded. Mortality was assessed at ICU discharge, on days 28 and 60, and at hospital discharge. Hospital mortality was defined as any death occurring during the hospital stay, including both the ICU and post-ICU periods. Mid-arm circumference (MAC) was measured as an indicator of muscle attenuation. Mean protein intake was 1.67 ± 0.33 vs. 0.93 ± 0.10 g/kg/day in high- vs. conventional-protein groups (P < 0.05). In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the high-protein group (8 patients [28.6%]) compared to the conventional-protein group (16 patients [57.1%]; adjusted P = 0.049). Although 60-day mortality was also lower in the high-protein group (28.6% vs. 53.6%), the difference did not reach statistical significance (adjusted…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 56 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free