Evidence Hub

Outcomes Six-Months After 100% or 70% of Enteral Calorie Requirements During Critical Illness (TARGET): A Randomized Controlled Trial

A. Deane, Lorraine Little, R. Bellomo, M. Chapman, A. Davies, S. Ferrie, M. Horowitz, S. Hurford et al.

American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2020

1,208 participants · 60 citations

Abstract

RATIONALE

The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared to a lesser amount of calories are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

Our hypotheses were that achieving approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness would increase quality of life scores, return to work and key life activities and reduce death and disability six months later.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3957 mechanically ventilated critically ill adults allocated to energy-dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Participants assigned energy-dense nutrition received more calories (% recommended energy intake, mean (SD) (energy-dense: 103% (28) vs. usual: 69% (18)). Mortality at day-180 was similar (560/1895 (29.6%) vs. 539/1920 (28.1%); relative risk 1.05 (95%CI, 0.95 to 1.16)). At a median [IQR] of 185 [182, 193] days after randomization, 2492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality of life questionnaire visual analogue scale, median [IQR]: 75 [60-85]; group difference: 0 (95%CI, 0 to 0)). Similar numbers of participants returned to work with no difference in hours worked or effectiveness at work (n=818). There was no observed difference in disability (n=1208) or participation in key life activities (n=705).

CONCLUSIONS

The delivery…

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: 1,208 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