The Lancet
August 17, 2024
PRECISe
Mazen Kherallah
Summarized by:
Population (P):
935 mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.
Intervention (I):
High protein provision at a dosage of 2.0 g/kg per day, administered via enteral feeding.
Comparator (C):
Standard protein provision at a dosage of 1.3 g/kg per day, administered via enteral feeding.
Outcome (O):
Primary Outcome: Health-related quality of life, measured using the EQ-5D-5L health utility score at 30, 90, and 180 days post-randomization.
Key Findings:High protein provision was associated with worse health-related quality of life compared to standard protein provision.
Mean difference in EQ-5D-5L health utility scores: -0.05 (95% CI -0.10 to -0.01; p=0.031), favoring the standard protein group.
Safety Outcomes:Mortality: No significant difference between the groups (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.40; p=0.22).
Gastrointestinal intolerance: Higher incidence in the high protein group (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.92; p=0.030).
Study Design (S):
Double-blinded, multicentre, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial conducted in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Conclusion:
This study challenges the assumption that higher protein provision leads to improved outcomes in critically ill patients. The findings indicate that high protein provision (2.0 g/kg per day) may not only fail to enhance functional recovery but could also negatively impact health-related quality of life and increase gastrointestinal intolerance. The results suggest that standard protein provision (1.3 g/kg per day) may be more beneficial in this patient population, with fewer associated risks. These insights are crucial for optimizing nutritional management strategies in intensive care units.