Skip to main content

Table 4 Relevant outcome parameters of included randomized studies of enteral glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients

From: Enteral glutamine supplementation in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Study

Methods

Intervention

Mortality, n (%)a

Infections, n (%)b

Hospital stay (days)

ICU LOS (days)

 

Score

Dose (g/kg/day)

Experimental

Control

Experimental

Control

Experimental

Control

Experimental

Control

Type of feeding

Houdijk et al. [24]

C. random: Yes

>0.25

4/41 (9.8)

3/39 (7.7)

20/35 (57.1)

26/37 (70.2)

32.7 ± 17.1

33.0 ± 23.8

NA

NA

ITT: No

Altira Q (glutamine-enriched formula) vs. isonitrogenous control (added amino acids)

Blinding: Yes

10

Same volume of feeding received in both groups

Jones et al. [25]

C. random: Yes

0.16

Hospital

Hospital

NA

NA

NA

NA

11 (4–54)

16.5 (5–66)

ITT: No

Protina Torre MP (Fresenius Kabi, Bad Homburg, Germany) + glutamine (10–15 g/day nitrogen) vs. isonitrogenous control (11–14 g/day nitrogen)

10/26 (38.5)

9/24 (37.5)

Blinding: Yes

ICU

ICU

8

9/26 (35)

9/24 (38)

6 months

6 months

12/26 (46)

10/24 (42)

Brantley and Pierce [26]

C. random: Not sure

0.50

0/31 (0.0)

0/41 (0.0)

NA

NA

19.5 ± 8.8

20.8 ± 11.5

11.4

11.1

ITT: No

Glutamine-supplemented enteral formula vs. standard formula (isonitrogenous) protein given 1.5 g/kg/day

Blinding: No

4

Hall et al. [27]

C. random: Yes

0.27

Hospital

Hospital

38/179 (21)

43/184 (23)

25 (16–42)c

30 (19–45)c

11 (7–19) (excluding deaths)

13 (8–19) (excluding deaths)

ITT: Yes

Isocal (Nestlé Health Science, Lutry, Switzerland) + glutamine (66 g/day protein) vs. isonitrogenous formula Isocal + glycine (64 g/day protein)

24/179 (13)

23/184 (13)

Blinding: Yes

ICU

ICU

13

16/179 (9)

14/184 (8)

30 days

30 days

26/179 (15)

25/184 (14)

6 months

6 months

27/179 (15)

30/184 (16)

Hall et al. [27]

C. random: Yes

0.27

7/76 (9)

6/78 (8)

Sepsis

Sepsis

NA

NA

NA

NA

Trauma subgroup

ITT: Yes

Isocal + glutamine (66 g/day protein) vs. isonitrogenous formula Isocal + glycine (64 g/day protein)

7/76 (9)

11/78 (14)

Blinding: Yes

13

Garrel et al. [28]

C. random: Yes

0.28

2/21 (10)

12/24 (50)

Positive blood cultures

Positive blood cultures

33 ± 17 (16)d

29 ± 17 (19)d

NA

NA

ITT: yes

Sandosource (Nestlé Health Science) + glutamine (2.15 g/kg/day protein) vs. Sandosource + amino acids (isonitrogenous), 1.97 g/kg/day protein

7/19 (37)

10/22 (45)

Blinding: Yes

11

Zhou et al. [29]

C. random: Yes

0.35

0/20

0/20

2/20 (10)

6/20 (30)

67 ± 4 (20)

73 ± 6 (20)

NA

NA

ITT: No

Ensure (NutriDrinks, Perivale, UK) + glutamine vs. Ensure + amino acids (isonitrogenous)

Blinding: Double-blind

8

Peng et al. [30]

C. random: Not sure

0.5

NA

NA

NA

NA

46.6 ± 12.9 (25)

55.7 ± 17.4 (23)

NA

NA

ITT: Yes

Oral glutamine granules vs. placebo (isocaloric, isonitrogenous) 2.0 g/kg/day protein

Blinding: No

7

Luo et al.e [31]

C. random: Not sure

0.32

ICU

ICU

NA

NA

NA

NA

8.1 ± 0.4 (12)

6.9 ± 0.9 (9)

ITT: No

Glutamine + IV saline + vs. Nutren (Nestlé Health Science) + 15 % Clinisol (Baxter Healthcare, Deerfield, IL, USA) (placebo) (isocaloric, isonitrogenous)

1/12

0 /9

Blinding: Double-blind

28 days

28 days

9

1.7 g/kg/d protein

1/12

0 /9

McQuiggan et al. [32]

C. random: Not sure

0.5 (actual 0.4) IMPACT (Nestlé Health Science) + Glutasolve (Nestlé Health Science) via NJ tube (1.3 g/kg/day protein), bolus with H2O vs. Impact + protein supplements (isonitrogenous, isocaloric) 0.85 g/kg/day protein

0/10

2/10 (20)

NA

NA

32 ± 13.6 (10)

39.3 ± 33.6 (10)

4.8 ± 6.7 (10)

10.4 ± 6.2 (10)

ITT: Yes

Blinding: No

10

Pattanshetti et al. [33]

C. random: Not sure

Enteral isonitrogenous mixture + EN glutamine + “regular” nutrition vs. enteral isonitrogenous mixture + “regular” nutrition

0/15

2/15

Number of times positive blood cultures

Number of times positive blood cultures

22.73 ± 9.13

39.73 ± 18.27

NA

NA

ITT: Yes

Blinding: Single-blind (outcomes)

8

0.20 ± 0.41

0.73 ± 0.96

van Zanten et al. [14]

C. random: Yes

0.28 (mean intake) glutamine, omega-3, antioxidant-enriched EN (experimental product) vs. isonitrogenous, isocaloric high-protein EN (Nutrison Advanced Protison; Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition, Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

Hospital

Hospital

80/152 (53)

78/149 (52)

38.2 ± 28.9

37.7 ± 27.5

23.7 ± 22.4

25.6 ± 24.0

ITT: Yes

38/152 (25)

33/149 (22)

Blinding: Double-blind

ICU

ICU

12

30/152 (20)

29/149 (20)

28 days

28 days

31/152 (20)

25/149 (17)

6 months

6 months

53/152 (35)

42/149 (29)

van Zanten et al. [14] trauma subgroup

C. random: Yes

0.28 (mean intake) glutamine, omega-3, antioxidant-enriched EN (experimental product) vs. isonitrogenous, isocaloric high-protein EN (Nutrison Advanced Protison)

Hospital

Hospital

32/55 (58)

36/54 (67)

44.4 ± 31.2

39.8 ± 25.3

31.3 ± 30.3

32.5 ± 27.5

ITT: Yes

6/55 (11)

6/54 (11)

Blinding: Double-blind

ICU

ICU

12

5/55 (9)

6/54 (11)

28 days

28 days

4/55 (7)

2/54 (4)

6 months

6 months

8/55 (15)

59/54 (17)

  1. C. random concealed randomization median (range), EN enteral nutrition, ITT intent to treat, IV intravenous, NA not applicable, NJ nasojejunal, TPN total parenteral nutrition
  2. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or number (%), as appropriate
  3. aHospital mortality unless otherwise stated
  4. bNumber of patients with infections unless otherwise stated
  5. cMedian and range hence not included in meta-analysis (Hall et al. 2003 [27]; p = not significant)
  6. dSubgroup of patients, hence not included in the meta-analyses [28]
  7. eData from parenteral glutamine group not shown here