Skip to main content

Table 3 Recent studies using parenteral nutrition.

From: Parenteral nutrition: never say never

 

Early nutrition route

Early PN

SPN

Hypocaloric vs. normocaloric

Optimal protein-energy

Protein nutrition

 

[12]

[9]

[10]

[32]

[33]

[34]

Study design

Multicenter, pragmatic RT

 

Multicenter, RCT

 

Two center, RCT

 

Prospective RT

 

Single center, observational study

  

Single center, observational study

  

Study groups

Parenteral

Enteral

Standard care

Early PN

EN group

EN + SPN

Normocaloric

Hypocaloric

No target

Protein-energy

Energy only

Low protein (0.8 g/kg/day)

Medium protein (1.1 g/kg/day)

High protein (1.5 g/kg/day)

Patients enrolled (n)

1188

1195

682

681

152

153

54

46

412

245

205

37

38

38

Route of nutrition

PN

EN

EN and/or PN

PN (and EN)

EN

EN + SPN

EN + SPN

EN and/or PN

EN + SPN

APACHE II score

19.6 ± 6.9

19.6 ± 7.0

21.5 ± 7.8

20.5 ± 7.4

23 ± 7

22 ± 7

27.7 ± 8.4

30.5 ± 8.5

23 ± 8

23.2 ± 7.4

21.9 ± 5.9

22.1 ± 6.8

Energy target

25 kcal/kg BW/day

Not specified

Harris-Benedict equation

Indirect calorimetry, or 25 kcal/kg BW/day (females) and 30 kcal/kg BW/day (males)

Indirect calorimetry, 100% EE, or Ireton-Jones equation

Indirect calorimetry, 50% EE, or Ireton-Jones equation

Harris-Benedict equation with added 20% for stress and 10% for activity until indirect calorimetry; EE from indirect calorimetry + 10% for activity

EE from indirect calorimetry, 25-30 kcal/day before calorimetry

Protein target

Not specified

Not specified

1.2 g/kg ideal BW

Not specified

1.2-1.5 g/kg preadmission body weight

1.2-1.5 g/kg (classified according to actual provision)

Primary outcome

No significant difference in death within 30 days between parenteral (33.1%) and enteral (34.2%) groups

No significant difference in crude day-60 mortality (standard care (22.8%) vs. early PN (21.5%))

Significantly reduced late nosocomial infections for EN + SPN (27%) vs. EN (38%)

Significantly higher rate of nosocomial infections for hypocaloric group (26.1%) vs. normocaloric group (11.1%)

50% decrease in 28-day mortality for protein-energy target group compared with no target group

Lower ICU mortality for patients with medium (24%) and high (16%) protein provision compared with low (27%) protein provision

Secondary outcome

Lower rate of hypoglycemia in parenteral (3.7%) vs. enteral (6.2%); lower rate of vomiting in parenteral (8.4%) vs. enteral (16.2%)

Significantly shorter duration of mechanical ventilation; significantly shorter for early PN

No significant difference in the length of stay in the ICU, the length of stay in the hospital, or mortality

Insulin demand higher in the normocaloric group; no significant difference for blood glucose level, duration of mechanical ventilation, or mortality

No significant difference for meeting energy target alone

APACHE II score, SOFA score, age also predict outcome, amount of energy provision was not related to outcome

  1. The recent PN studies are shown in the order of their citation in the article. Data are shown as stated in the original article
  2. APACHE Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation, BW body weight, EN enteral nutrition, PN parenteral nutrition, RCT randomized controlled trial, RT randomized trial, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, SPN supplemental parenteral nutrition