Evidence Hub

Early hypophosphatemia in critically ill children and the effect of parenteral nutrition: A secondary analysis of the PEPaNIC RCT.

K. Veldscholte, M. Veen, R. Eveleens, R. D. de Jonge, I. Vanhorebeek, J. Gunst, M. Casaer, P. Wouters et al.

Clinical Nutrition, 2022

1,440 participants · 12 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hypophosphatemia during critical illness has been associated with adverse outcome. The reintroduction of enteral or parenteral nutrition, leading to refeeding hypophosphatemia (RFH), has been presented as potential risk factor. We investigated the occurrence of early RFH, its association with clinical outcome, and the impact of early parenteral nutrition (PN) on the development of early RFH in pediatric critical illness.

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the PEPaNIC randomized controlled trial (N = 1440), which showed that withholding supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN) for 1 week (late-PN) in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) accelerated recovery and reduced new infections compared to early-PN (0.16 mmol/L within 3 days of admission to the PICU. The association between baseline characteristics and early RFH, and the association of early RFH with clinical outcome were investigated using logistic and linear regression models, both uncorrected and corrected for possible confounders. To examine the impact of nutritional intake on phosphate concentrations, structural nested mean models with propensity score and censoring models were used.

RESULTS

A total of 1247 patients were eligible (618 early-PN, 629 late-PN). Early RFH occurred in 40 patients (3%) in total, significantly more in the early-PN group (n = 31, within-group occurrence 5%) than in the late-PN-group (n = 9, within-group occurrence 1%, p < 0.001). Patients who were older (OR 1.14…

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: 1,440 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