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

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


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