Evidence Hub

Trajectories of protein intake and 28-day mortality in critically ill patients: A secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Jia-Jia Lin, Wensong Chen, Xiang-Hong Ye, Cheng Lv, Yang Liu, Xingwei Jiang, Z. Tong, Yu-Xiu Liu et al.

Clinical Nutrition, 2022

2,191 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The optimal protein intake approach during the early phase of critical illness remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the association between different trajectories of protein intake and 28-day mortality in a cohort of critically ill patients.

METHODS

The NEED trial is a multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial assessing the impact of an actively implemented evidence-based nutrition guideline on mortality in critically ill patients. This secondary analysis included the patients who stayed in ICU for at least seven days. Group-based trajectory modeling was applied to identify subgroups with similar protein intake trajectories in this cohort. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze the impact of different trajectories on 28-day mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 2191 patients were included for analysis. A distinct triple-group trajectory of protein intake was identified, with 919 patients categorized into the low-level protein intake group, 1146 the medium-level group, and 126 the high-level group. The mean daily protein intake from the low-to high-level protein intake group during the first week of enrollment were 0.38 ± 0.14, 0.8 ± 0.18, and 1.68 ± 0.39 g/kg/d, respectively. Compared with the medium-level protein intake group, the low-level or high-level protein intake group was associated with significantly increased 28-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.348, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.067-1.704; HR = 2.291, 95% CI:…

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: 2,191 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