Evidence Hub

Association between caloric adequacy and short-term clinical outcomes in critically ill patients using a weight-based equation: Secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Cheng Lv, Xingwei Jiang, Y. Long, Zirui Liu, Jia-Jia Lin, Cuili Wu, Xiang-Hong Ye, Rui-Ling Ye et al.

Frontiers in Nutrition, 2022

2,772 participants · 11 citations

Abstract

Background There is controversy over the optimal energy delivery in intensive care units (ICUs). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between different caloric adequacy assessed by a weight-based equation and short-term clinical outcomes in a cohort of critically ill patients. Methods This is a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (N = 2,772). The energy requirement was estimated as 25 kcal/kg of body weight. The study subjects were divided into three groups according to their caloric adequacy as calculated by the mean energy delivered from days 3 to 7 of enrollment divided by the estimated energy requirements: (1) received 100% of energy requirement (hypercaloric). Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the association between caloric adequacy and 28-day mortality and time to discharge alive from the ICU. Results A total of 1,694 patients were included. Compared with normocaloric feeding, hypocaloric feeding significantly increased the risk of 28-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.590, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.162–2.176, p = 0.004), while hypercaloric feeding did not. After controlling for potential confounders, the association remained valid (adjusted HR = 1.596, 95% CI: 1.150–2.215, p = 0.005). The caloric adequacy was not associated with time to discharge alive from the ICU in the unadjusted and the adjusted models. Conclusion Energy delivery below 70% of the estimated energy requirement during days 3–7 of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 2,772 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