Evidence Hub

Six-month outcomes after traumatic brain injury in the Augmented versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled Trial (TARGET)

K. Wittholz, K. Fetterplace, L. Chapple, E. Ridley, M. Finnis, J. Presneill, M. Chapman, Sandra L Peake et al.

Australian Critical Care, 2024

3,957 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may require prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hence receive greater exposure to hospital enteral nutrition. It is unknown if augmented energy delivery with enteral nutrition during ICU admission impacts quality of life in survivors or gastrointestinal tolerance during nutrition delivery in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare health-related quality of life, using the EuroQol five-dimensions five-level visual analogue scale at 6 months, in survivors who presented with a TBI and received augmented energy (1.5 kcal/ml) to those who received routine energy (1.0 kcal/ml). Secondary objectives were to explore differences in total energy and protein delivery, gastrointestinal tolerance, and mortality between groups.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of participants admitted with a TBI in the Augmented versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) randomised controlled trial. Data are represented as n (%) or median (interquartile range).

RESULTS

Of the 3957 patients in TARGET, 231 (5.8%) were admitted after a TBI (augmented = 124; routine = 107). Patients within TARGET who were admitted with a TBI were relatively young (42 [27, 61] years) and received TARGET enteral nutrition for an extended period (9 [5, 15] days). At 6 months, EuroQol five-dimensions five-level quality-of-life scores were available for 166 TBI survivors (72% of TBI cohort randomised, augmented = 97,…

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: 3,957 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