التفاصيل البيبلوغرافية
| العنوان: |
Outcomes Six Months after Delivering 100% or 70% of Enteral Calorie Requirements during Critical Illness (TARGET). A Randomized Controlled Trial. |
| المؤلفون: |
Deane, Adam M., Little, Lorraine, Bellomo, Rinaldo, Chapman, Marianne J., Davies, Andrew R., Ferrie, Suzie, Horowitz, Michael, Hurford, Sally, Lange, Kylie, Litton, Edward, Mackle, Diane, O’Connor, Stephanie, Parker, Jane, Peake, Sandra L., Presneill, Jeffrey J., Ridley, Emma J., Singh, Vanessa, Haren, Frank van, Williams, Patricia, Young, Paul |
| المصدر: |
American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine; 4/1/2020, Vol. 201 Issue 7, p814-822, 9p |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: |
CALORIE, CRITICALLY ill, QUALITY of life, NUTRITION, CONFIDENCE intervals, RESEARCH, TIME, RESEARCH methodology, INGESTION, NUTRITIONAL requirements, EVALUATION research, MEDICAL cooperation, CATASTROPHIC illness, TREATMENT effectiveness, COMPARATIVE studies, BLIND experiment, ENTERAL feeding |
| مستخلص: |
Rationale: The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared with 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 6 months later.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3,957 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 (percent recommended energy intake, mean [SD]; energy-dense: 103% [28] vs. usual: 69% [18]). Mortality at Day 180 was similar (560/1,895 [29.6%] vs. 539/1,920 [28.1%]; relative risk 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.16]). At a median (interquartile range) of 185 (182-193) days after randomization, 2,492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality-of-life questionnaire visual analog scale, median [interquartile range]: 75 [60-85]; group difference: 0 [95% confidence interval, 0-0]). 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 = 1,208) or participation in key life activities (n = 705).Conclusions: The delivery of approximately 100% compared with 70% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness does not improve quality of life or functional outcomes or increase the number of survivors 6 months later. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|
Copyright of American Journal of Respiratory & Critical Care Medicine is the property of American Thoracic Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| قاعدة البيانات: |
Complementary Index |
Full Text Finder