Normocaloric versus hypocaloric feeding on the outcomes of ICU patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 3.3k Downloads
Current clinical practice guidelines recommend providing ICU patients a daily caloric intake estimated to match 80–100 % of energy expenditure (normocaloric goals). However, recent clinical trials of intentional hypocaloric feeding question this approach.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of ICU patients randomized to intentional hypocaloric or normocaloric goals. We included randomized controlled trials that enrolled ICU patients and compared intentional hypocaloric with normocaloric nutritional goals. We included studies that evaluated both trophic feeding as well as permissive underfeeding. Data sources included MEDLINE, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials and citation review of relevant primary and review articles. The outcomes of interest included hospital acquired infection, hospital mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS) and ventilator-free days (VFDs).
Six studies which enrolled 2517 patients met our inclusion criteria. The mean age and body mass index (BMI) across the studies were 53 ± 5 years and 29.1 ± 1.5 kg/m2, respectively. Two studies compared normocaloric feeding (77 % of goal) with trophic feeding (20 % of goal), while four studies compared normocaloric feeding (72 % of goal) with permissive underfeeding (49 % of goal). Overall, there was no significant difference in the risk of infectious complications (OR 1.03; 95 % CI 0.84–1.27, I2 = 16 %), hospital mortality (OR 0.91; 95 % CI 0.75–1.11, I2 = 8 %) or ICU LOS (mean difference 0.05 days; 95 % CI 1.33–1.44 days; I2 = 37 %) between groups. VFDs were reported in three studies with no significant difference between the normocaloric and intentional hypocaloric groups (data not pooled).
This meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in the risk of acquired infections, hospital mortality, ICU length of stay or ventilator-free days between patients receiving intentional hypocaloric as compared to normocaloric nutritional goals.
KeywordsEnteral nutrition Permissive underfeeding Trophic feeding Caloric goals
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interests
- 3.McClave SA, Martindale RG, Vanek VW, McCarthy M, Roberts P, Taylor B, Ochoa JB, Napolitano L, Cresci G (2009) Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically ill patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). J Parenter Enteral Nutr 33:277–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Lemieux M, Drover J, Jurewitsch B, Greenwood J, Kutsogiannis J, McCall M, Pagliarello G, Wynn C, Garrel D, Gramlich L, Rahman A, Jeejeebhoy K, Macdonald G, Muscedere J (2015) Canadian clinical practice guidelines. http://www.criticalcarenutrition.com/2015. Accessed 9 Sep 2015
- 5.Kreymann KG, Berger MM, Deutz NE, Hiesmayr M, Jolliet P, Kazandjiev G, Nitenberg G, van den Berghe G, Wernerman J, Ebner C, Hartl W, Heymann C, Spies C, DGEM (German Society for Nutritional Medicine) (2006) ESPEN guidelines on enteral nutrition: intensive care. Clin Nutr 25:210–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Elke G, Wang M, Weiler N, Day AG, Heyland DK (2014) Close to recommended caloric and protein intake by enteral nutrition is associated with better clinical outcome of critically ill septic patients: secondary analysis of a large International Nutrition Databse. Crit Care 18:R29PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Weijs PJ, Stapel SN, de Groot SD, Driessen RH, de Jong E, Girbes AR, van Strack Schijndel RJ, Beishuizen A (2012) Optimal protein and energy nutrition decreases mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a prospective observational cohort study. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 36:60–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339:b2700PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Higgins JP and Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 15 July 2015
- 20.Biljana M, Jelena M, Branislav J, Milorad R, Biljana M, Jelena M, Branislav J, Milorad R (1999) Bias in meta-analysis and funnel plot asymmetry. Stud Health Technol Informat 68:323–328Google Scholar
- 23.Charles EJ, Petroze RT, Metzger R, Hranjec T, Rosenberger LH, Riccio LM, McLeod MD, Guidry CA, Stukenborg GJ, Swenson BR, Willcutts KF, O’Donnell KB, Sawyer RG (2014) Hypocaloric compared with eucaloric nutritionaql support and its effect on infection rates in a surgical intensive care unit: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr 100:1337–1343PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Tappy L, Schwarz JM, Schneiter P, Cayeux C, Revelly JP, Fagerquist C, Jequier E, Chiolero R (1998) Effects of isoenergetic glucose-based or lipid-based parenteral nutrition on glucose metabolism, de novo lipogenesis, and respiratory gas exchanges in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 26:860–867PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Needham DM, Dinglas VD, Morris PE, Jackson JC, Hough CL, Mendez-Tellez PA, Wozniak AW, Colantuoni E, Ely EW, Rice TW, Hopkins RO (2013) Physical and cognitive performance of acute lung injury patients one year after initial trophic vs full enteral feeding: EDEN trial follow-up. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 188:567–576PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Needham DM, Dinglas VD, Bienvenu OJ, Colantuoni E, Wozniak AW, Rice TW, Hopkins RO (2013) One-year outcomes in patients with acute lung injury randomised to initial trophic or full enteral feeding: prospective follow-up of EDEN randomised trial. BMJ 346:f1532PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Heyland DK, Murch L, Cahill N, McCall M, Muscedere J, Stelfox HT, Bray T, Tanguay T, Jiang X, Day AG (2013) Enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route feeding protocol in critically ill patients: results of a cluster randomized trial. Crit Care Med 41:2743–2753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Gazzaneo MC, Suryawan A, Orellana RA, Torrazza RM, El-Kadi SW, Wilson FA, Kimball SR, Srivastava N, Nguyen HV, Fiorotto ML, Davis TA (2011) Intermittent bolus feeding has a greater stimulatory effect on protein synthesis in skeletal muscle than continuous feeding in neonatal pigs. J Nutr 141:2152–2158PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 42.Chowdhury AH, Murray K, Hoad CL, Costigan C, Marciani L, MacDonald IA, Bowling TE, Lobo DN (2015) Effects of bolus and continuous nasogastric feeding on gastric emptying, small bowel water content, superior mesenteric artery blood flow, and plasma hormone concentrations in heathy adults. A randomized crossover study, Ann Surg (in press)Google Scholar