Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/45770
Title: Higher Versus Lower Protein Delivery in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis
Authors: Heuts, Samuel
Lee, Zheng-Yii
Lew, Charles Chin Han
Bels, Julia L. M.
Gabrio, Andrea
Kawczynski, Michal J.
Heyland, Daren K.
Summers, Matthew J.
Deane, Adam M.
MESOTTEN, Dieter 
Chapple, Lee-anne S.
Stoppe, Christian
van de Poll, Marcel C. G.
Issue Date: 2025
Publisher: LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Source: Critical care medicine, 53 (3) , p. e645 -e655
Abstract: OBJECTIVES:Recent multicenter trials suggest that higher protein delivery may result in worse outcomes in critically ill patients, but uncertainty remains. An updated Bayesian meta-analysis of recent evidence was conducted to estimate the probabilities of beneficial and harmful treatment effects. DATA SOURCES:An updated systematic search was performed in three databases until September 4, 2024. The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and the protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42024546387). STUDY SELECTION:Randomized controlled trials that studied adult critically ill patients comparing protein doses delivered enterally and/or parenterally with similar energy delivery between groups were included. DATA EXTRACTION:Data extraction was performed by two authors independently, using a predefined worksheet. The primary outcome was mortality. Posterior probabilities of any benefit (relative risk [RR] < 1.00) or harm (RR > 1.00) and other important beneficial and harmful effect size thresholds were estimated. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the risk of bias 2.0 tool. All analyses were performed using a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models, under vague priors. DATA SYNTHESIS:Twenty-two randomized trials (n = 4164 patients) were included. The mean protein delivery in the higher and lower protein groups was 1.5 +/- 0.6 vs. 0.9 +/- 0.4 g/kg/d. The median RR for mortality was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.84-1.16). The posterior probability of any mortality benefit from higher protein delivery was 43.6%, while the probability of any harm was 56.4%. The probabilities of a 1% (RR < 0.99) and 5% (RR < 0.95) mortality reduction by higher protein delivery were 38.7% and 22.9%, respectively. Conversely, the probabilities of a 1% (RR > 1.01) and 5% (RR > 1.05) mortality increase were 51.5% and 32.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:There is a considerable probability of an increased mortality risk with higher protein delivery in critically ill patients, although a clinically beneficial effect cannot be completely eliminated based on the current data.
Notes: zheng_yii@hotmail.com; charles.nutrition@gmail.com; julia.bels@mumc.nl;
a.gabrio@maastrichtuniversity.nl; m.kawczynski@maastrichtuniversity.nl;
dkh2@queensu.ca; matthew.summers@sa.gov.au; Adam.Deane@mh.org.au;
Dieter.Mesotten@zol.be; lee-anne.chapple@adelaide.edu.au;
christian.stoppe@gmail.com; marcel.vande.poll@mumc.nl
Keywords: Bayesian statistical methodology;critical illness;meta-analysis;nutrition;protein;randomized controlled trials
Document URI: http://hdl.handle.net/1942/45770
ISSN: 0090-3493
e-ISSN: 1530-0293
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006562
ISI #: 001437194000032
Rights: 2024 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Category: A1
Type: Journal Contribution
Appears in Collections:Research publications

Show full item record

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

11
checked on Dec 12, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

10
checked on Dec 17, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.