ABSTRACT
Background
The optimal amount of protein intake in critically ill patients is uncertain.
Objective
In this post hoc analysis of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding vs. Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial, we tested the hypothesis that higher total protein intake was associated with lower 90-d mortality and improved protein biomarkers in critically ill patients.
Design
In this post hoc analysis of the PermiT trial, we included patients who received enteral feeding for ≥3 consecutive days. Using the median protein intake of the cohort as a cutoff, patients were categorized into 2 groups: a higher-protein group (>0.80 g · kg–1 · d–1) and a lower-protein group (≤0.80 g · kg–1 · d–1). We developed a propensity score for receiving higher protein. Primary outcome was 90-d mortality. We also compared serial values of prealbumin, transferrin, 24-h urinary nitrogen, and 24-h nitrogen balance on days 1, 7, and 14.
Results
Among the 729 patients included in this analysis, the average protein intake was 0.8 ± 0.3 g · kg–1 · d–1 [1.0 ± 0.2 g · kg–1 · d–1 in the higher-protein group (n = 365) and 0.6 ± 0.2 g · kg–1 · d–1 in the lower-protein group (n = 364); P < 0.0001]. There was no difference in 90-d mortality between the 2 groups [88/364 (24.2%) compared with 94/363 (25.9%), propensity score–adjusted OR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.56, 1.16; P = 0.24]. Higher protein intake was associated with an increase in 24-h urea nitrogen excretion compared with lower protein intake, but without a significant change in prealbumin, transferrin, or 24-h nitrogen balance.
Conclusions
In the PermiT trial, a moderate difference in protein intake was not associated with lower mortality. Higher protein intake was associated with increased nitrogen excretion in the urine without a corresponding change in prealbumin, transferrin, or nitrogen balance. Protein intake needs to be tested in adequately powered randomized controlled trials targeting larger differences in protein intake in high-risk populations.
Dyspnoea and clinical outcome in critically ill patients receiving noninvasive support for COVID-19 respiratory failure: post hoc analysis of a randomised clinical trial
