Skip to main content
Download PDF

Enhanced exclusive enteral nutrition delivery during the first 7 days is associated with decreased 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with normal lactate level: a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial

Critical Care volume 28, Article number: 26 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background and aims

Exclusive enteral nutrition (EN) is often observed during the first week of ICU admission because of the extra costs and safety considerations for early parenteral nutrition. This study aimed to assess the association between nutrition intake and 28-day mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN.

Methods

This is a post hoc analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial that assesses the effect of implementing a feeding protocol on mortality in critically ill patients. Patients who stayed in the ICUs for at least 7 days and received exclusive EN were included in this analysis. Multivariable Cox hazard regression models and restricted cubic spline models were used to assess the relationship between the different doses of EN delivery and 28-day mortality. Subgroups with varying lactate levels at enrollment were additionally analyzed to address the potential confounding effect brought in by the presence of shock-related hypoperfusion.

Results

Overall, 1322 patients were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) daily energy and protein delivery during the first week of enrollment were 14.6 (10.3–19.6) kcal/kg and 0.6 (0.4–0.8) g/kg, respectively. An increase of 5 kcal/kg energy delivery was associated with a significant reduction (approximately 14%) in 28-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.865, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.768–0.974, P = 0.016). For protein intake, a 0.2 g/kg increase was associated with a similar mortality reduction with an adjusted HR of 0.868 (95% CI 0.770–0.979). However, the benefits associated with enhanced nutrition delivery could be observed in patients with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L (adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.674–0.960) for energy delivery and adjusted HR = 0.804 (95% CI 0.672–0.962) for protein delivery, respectively), but not in those > 2 mmol/L.

Conclusions

During the first week of critical illness, enhanced nutrition delivery is associated with reduced mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN, only for those with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L.

Trial registration: ISRCTN12233792, registered on November 24, 2017.

Introduction

Enteral nutrition (EN) provides unique non-nutritional benefits, including maintenance of gastrointestinal integrity, preservation of intestinal microbiome, and modulation of the immune and inflammatory responses [1,2,3,4]. Several studies have shown that early EN may improve outcomes in critically ill patients [5,6,7,8]. Therefore, the current guidelines strongly recommend initiating EN within 48 h after ICU admission if there is no contraindication [9, 10], and supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN) remains controversial within the first week [9]. As a result, exclusive EN delivery becomes a common practice during the first week of ICU admission. However, the progression of EN into a target-reaching dose is highly subjective to the clinician and often takes several days due to feeding intolerance or other adverse events [11,12,13].

Although early EN has become the standard of care in critically ill patients [9, 10], a major concern impeding early EN is unstable hemodynamics. The guidelines recommended EN be withheld until the patient is fully resuscitated and/or hemodynamically stable [9], and serum lactate is a widely used marker for hypoperfusion in shock patients [14,15,16,17]. Also, there is a concern that too much EN delivery may cause mesenteric ischemia in patients with insufficient gastrointestinal perfusion, evidenced by increased lactate [18, 19]. Nevertheless, there is a lack of evidence regarding whether patients with or without increased blood lactate may respond differently to enhance EN delivery.

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between energy and protein delivery and 28-day mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN during the first week of stay. Furthermore, we also stratified the study subjects according to their blood lactate level at enrollment to assess potential interaction.

Methods

Study design and patients

This was a post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial (NEED trial) [20]. The trial was approved by the ethics committee of Jinling Hospital (22017NZKY-019–02) and registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12233792) before enrollment. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or next of kin. Additional information on the NEED trial, including the study protocol and statistical analysis plan, was published in the main article [20].

Overall, 2772 newly admitted patients were enrolled from 90 ICUs across China. Briefly, the participating ICUs were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either implementing a feeding guideline or following a routine practice. In the guideline group, a nutrition support team was formed to actively implement the guideline using a graphical feeding protocol, instructing when to initiate EN, when to adjust the feeding rate, when to consider parenteral nutrition, and how to manage intolerance. Moreover, daily checklists, standardized educational materials, and live online education outreach meetings were used to facilitate the implementation of the feeding guideline. Meanwhile, other ICUs in the control group followed the local clinical practice and remained unaware of the guideline content. The original study was partly funded by Nutricia, Wuxi, China, which had no role in the study's design, data collection, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript. Representatives from Nutricia received copies of the paper before formal submission but had no influence over the content.

In this post hoc analysis, patients who stayed in the ICU for at least 7 days and received exclusive EN during the first week of enrollment were included. We excluded the patients who received any oral diet because the energy and protein via oral intake cannot be accurately calculated.

Data collection

All the data required for this analysis were collected from the electronic database of the original trial, including baseline characteristics, daily nutritional therapy, and the requirement of organ support therapy. The baseline characteristics were collected if patients admitted to the participating ICUs were eligible for inclusion. The baseline data included age, sex, height, body mass index (BMI), types of ICU admission, number of co-morbidities, illness severity scores such as Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score [21], Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score [22], and modified Nutrition Risk in the Critically ill (mNUTRIC) score [23], and the most recent lactate level at enrollment. Daily information on nutrition therapy, including the time to initiation of EN, the amount of energy and protein delivered by EN, and the use of prokinetic agents, were collected for a maximum of 7 days after enrollment or until ICU discharge or death. The use of organ support therapy (renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, and vasoactive agents) was collected during the same time period.

Outcomes and definition

The primary outcome is 28-day mortality. The secondary outcome is ICU-free days to day 28, which is defined as days alive and free from the need for intensive care from enrollment to day 28. Patients who were discharged from ICU on day 28 or died prior to day 28 were assigned zero ICU-free days. Nutrition adequacy was defined as the actual daily energy or protein delivered in the first 7 days divided by the target nutritional requirement as a percentage. The nutrition targets were defined according to the original trial [20], which were 25 kcal/kg of the ideal body weight (IBW) for energy delivery and 1.2 g/kg (IBW) for protein delivery. The IBW was calculated using the Broca formula: Height (cm) − 100 (men)/105 (women) [24].

Statistical analyses

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to examine the normality of continuous variables. Continuous data were presented in mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR). Categorical data were presented as frequencies and percentages.

The Cox proportional hazards models were performed to assess the association between nutrition delivery and 28-day mortality. Energy and protein were modeled separately due to their high co-linearity. Potential confounders, including age, sex, BMI, SOFA score, number of co-morbidities, and the study interventions (guideline group or control group) (Additional file 1: Table S1), were additionally adjusted in the models. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated per increased 5 kcal/kg of energy or 0.2 g/kg of protein, respectively. Additionally, we performed subgroup analyses according to the blood lactate levels at enrollment (> 2 mmol/L and ≤ 2 mmol/L) [25]. Restricted cubic spline models with random intercepts were fitted to explore the dose–response relationship of nutrition delivery (energy and protein delivery in separate models) and 28-day mortality. The adjusted factors were the same as those in the Cox proportional hazards models. To address the potential impact of using IBW instead of actual body weight (ABW), we performed a sensitivity analysis to support the primary analysis. In this analysis, we used the ABW to calculate the daily energy (kcal/kg/d) and protein (g/kg/d) in the Cox proportional hazards models.

All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 4.1.0). A two-tailed P value of < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Patients characteristics

After screening all patients in the NEED trial, 1322 patients were included in this analysis (Fig. 1). Table 1 describes the baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of the study patients. Overall, 66% of the study subjects were male, with a median age of 64 (IQR 49–76) years and a median SOFA score of 7 (IQR 5–10). The majority of the study subjects were admitted to general ICUs (n = 1143, 86.5%), underwent nutrition therapy with a feeding protocol (n = 822, 62.2%), and required mechanical ventilation (n = 844, 63.8%). About 4% of patients were admitted to surgical ICUs, and 1.6% of patients were admitted to medical ICUs, respectively. The 28-day mortality of the study cohort was 13.2% (175/1322).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study patients

Full size image
Table 1 Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of study patients
Full size table

Nutrition therapy

The information on enteral nutrition therapy is summarized in Table 2. Most patients (n = 1004, 75.9%) received EN within 48 h after ICU admission, and the median time to start EN was 2 (IQR 1–2) days. About 21.1% of patients received prokinetic agents during the first week. Gastric feeding was the predominant route for initiation of EN (91.6% of patients). On average, the study patients received 14.6 kcal/kg/d for energy delivery and 0.6 g/kg/d for protein delivery during the first week after enrollment, accounting for 58.5% adequacy of energy delivery and 44% adequacy of protein delivery, respectively. The daily energy and protein delivery within the first 7 days after enrollment are shown in Additional file 1: Figure S1.

Table 2 Nutrition therapy of study patients
Full size table

Association between enhanced nutrition delivery and clinical outcomes

The relationship between enteral nutrition delivery and 28-day mortality is shown in Table 3. During the first week of enrollment, each 5 kcal/kg increase in mean energy delivery was associated with an approximately 13% reduction in 28-day mortality (adjusted HR = 0.865, 95% CI 0.768–0.974, P = 0.016), while each 0.2 g/kg increase in mean protein intake (adjusted HR = 0.884, 95% CI 0.804–0.971, P = 0.01) was also associated with similarly reduced mortality.

Table 3 The relationship between enteral nutrition and 28-day mortality
Full size table

In subgroup analysis, the association between enhanced nutrition delivery and improved 28-day survival remained significant in patients with baseline lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L (adjusted HR = 0.804, 95% CI 0.674–0.960 for energy delivery and adjusted HR = 0.804, 95% CI 0.672–0.962 for protein delivery, respectively), but not for patients with a lactate level over 2 mmol/L (adjusted HR = 0.933, 95% CI 0.796–1.095 for energy delivery and adjusted HR = 0.941, 95% CI 0.800–1.105 for protein delivery, respectively). The restricted cubic spline analysis results were consistent with the primary analysis (Fig. 2), including the subgroup analysis.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Association of energy (kcal/kg/d) with 28-day mortality (left), and protein (g/kg/d) delivery with 28-day mortality (right) in total population (A), patients with lactate ≤ 2 mmol/L (B) or > 2 mmol/L (C)

Full size image

Considering the potential impact of using IBW instead of ABW, we performed a sensitivity analysis using the ABW to calculate the daily energy (kcal/kg/d) and protein (g/kg/d). The results remained stable in different models (Additional file 1: Table S2).

Discussion

In this study, the results showed that enhanced nutrition delivery was associated with reduced 28-day mortality in critically ill patients receiving exclusive EN during the first week of ICU admission. However, this association disappeared in patients with baseline lactate concentration > 2 mmol/L.

Our findings demonstrated that the nutrition therapy was, on average, suboptimal in our study, with only 58.5% adequacy for energy delivery and 44% adequacy for protein delivery during the first week, respectively. However, these findings align with comparable observational studies, which showed that most ICU patients receive only approximately 50% of their energy and protein requirements [26], suggesting a significant gap between guideline recommendations and clinical practice. Moreover, exclusive EN feeding may lead to nutritional inadequacy due to implementation factors such as feeding intolerance [27], feeding interruption [28], unstable hemodynamics [29], etc., although the clinical significance was not well demonstrated. Supplemental PN might be a promising option to close these gaps, but there are concerns about the optimal timing of SPN and the risk of overfeeding without the guidance of indirect calorimetry [30].

Studies focusing on patients receiving exclusive EN are scarce in the literature. Two observational studies involving exclusively EN-fed septic patients found that more EN delivery was associated with reduced 60-day mortality, more ventilator-free days in septic patients, and fewer infectious complications [11, 12]. However, two randomized trials comparing trophic EN and full EN feeding for the first 6 days of randomization in acute respiratory failure/acute lung injury patients did not detect a significant difference in clinical outcomes [31, 32]. Moreover, in two previous large trials comparing different energy delivery strategies (the TARGET [33] and the PermiT [34]), the proportions of PN-fed patients were both lower than 5%, making the study populations very similar to exclusive EN-fed patients. However, either enhanced energy delivery (the TARGET) or permissive underfeeding (the PERMIT) did not improve mortality. Compared to the abovementioned studies, our study excluded those with a short ICU stay (less than 7 days), in whom nutrition therapy is less likely to affect outcomes. Still, the results need to be confirmed in a future trial.

For shock patients, the 2016 Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) guidelines recommend delaying EN until the patient is fully resuscitated and/or hemodynamically stable [9]. Lactate level was found to be significantly correlated with microcirculation perfusion in shock patients [35], and serum lactate concentration > 2 mmol/L is accepted as an indicator of septic shock according to Sepsis 3.0 [36]. Our subgroup analysis indicated that the beneficial effect of EN was more evident in patients with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L, whereas patients with lactate concentration > 2 mmol/L may not benefit from enhanced EN delivery. One possible explanation is that high lactate levels might be associated with intestinal hypoperfusion and an increased risk of feeding intolerance [37], which hampers the benefits of enhanced EN delivery. Another possible explanation is that the initiation of EN was delayed in the high lactate group, as required by the feeding guideline in the original trial (not to start EN when lactate level > 4.0 mmol/L). Due to delayed EN initiation, these patients may need more EN-fed time to benefit from enhanced EN delivery, and our observation window (7 days) limited our ability to test this possibility. Future studies may extend the observation time to assess the effect of nutrition therapy in this population.

We acknowledge several limitations of this study. First, owing to the post hoc nature of this study, a causal relationship between higher EN delivery and improved 28-day survival cannot be inferred. Second, the Chinese critically ill population is significantly different from the American or European population in terms of the proportion of obese patients [38, 39], which may impact the generalizability of our findings. Third, we did not collect the adverse events of enteral feeding, such as acute mesenteric ischemia. Additionally, due to the multicollinearity between energy and protein delivery, we could not weigh which factor is more important.

Conclusion

This study showed that a greater amount of EN delivery is associated with decreased 28-day mortality in critically ill patients, only in patients with lactate concentration ≤ 2 mmol/L. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm our findings.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analyzed in this article are not publicly available due to health privacy concerns but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

ICU:

Intensive care unit

EN:

Enteral nutrition

BMI:

Body mass index

mNUTRIC:

Modified nutrition risk in the critically ill

APACHE II:

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II

SOFA:

Sequential organ failure assessment

CRRT:

Continuous renal replacement therapy

MV:

Mechanical ventilation

References

  1. Krezalek MA, Yeh A, Alverdy JC, Morowitz M. Influence of nutrition therapy on the intestinal microbiome. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2017;20(2):131–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jabbar A, Chang WK, Dryden GW, McClave SA. Gut immunology and the differential response to feeding and starvation. Nutr Clin Pract. 2003;18(6):461–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hernandez G, Velasco N, Wainstein C, Castillo L, Bugedo G, Maiz A, Lopez F, Guzman S, Vargas C. Gut mucosal atrophy after a short enteral fasting period in critically ill patients. J Crit Care. 1999;14(2):73–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. McClave SA, Heyland DK. The physiologic response and associated clinical benefits from provision of early enteral nutrition. Nutr Clin Pract. 2009;24(3):305–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gramlich L, Kichian K, Pinilla J, Rodych NJ, Dhaliwal R, Heyland DK. Does enteral nutrition compared to parenteral nutrition result in better outcomes in critically ill adult patients? A systematic review of the literature. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 2004;20(10):843–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Doig GS, Heighes PT, Simpson F, Sweetman EA, Davies AR. Early enteral nutrition, provided within 24 h of injury or intensive care unit admission, significantly reduces mortality in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(12):2018–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sun JK, Li WQ, Ke L, Tong ZH, Ni HB, Li G, Zhang LY, Nie Y, Wang XY, Ye XH, et al. Early enteral nutrition prevents intra-abdominal hypertension and reduces the severity of severe acute pancreatitis compared with delayed enteral nutrition: a prospective pilot study. World J Surg. 2013;37(9):2053–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Marik PE, Zaloga GP. Early enteral nutrition in acutely ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(12):2264–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, Warren MM, Johnson DR, Braunschweig C, McCarthy MS, Davanos E, Rice TW, Cresci GA, et al. Guidelines for the provision and assessment of nutrition support therapy in the adult critically Ill patient: society of critical care medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(2):159–211.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Singer P, Blaser AR, Berger MM, Alhazzani W, Calder PC, Casaer MP, Hiesmayr M, Mayer K, Montejo JC, Pichard C, et al. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(1):48–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Elke G, Wang M, Weiler N, Day AG, Heyland DK. Close to recommended caloric and protein intake by enteral nutrition is associated with better clinical outcome of critically ill septic patients: secondary analysis of a large international nutrition database. Crit Care. 2014;18(1):R29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Heyland DK, Stephens KE, Day AG, McClave SA. The success of enteral nutrition and ICU-acquired infections: a multicenter observational study. Clin Nutr. 2011;30(2):148–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee ZY, Ibrahim NA, Mohd-Yusof BN. Prevalence and duration of reasons for enteral nutrition feeding interruption in a tertiary intensive care unit. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif). 2018;53:26–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bakker J, Gris P, Coffernils M, Kahn RJ, Vincent JL. Serial blood lactate levels can predict the development of multiple organ failure following septic shock. Am J Surg. 1996;171(2):221–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vincent JL, Dufaye P, Berre J, Leeman M, Degaute JP, Kahn RJ. Serial lactate determinations during circulatory shock. Crit Care Med. 1983;11(6):449–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schuster HP. Prognostic value of blood lactate in critically ill patients. Resuscitation. 1984;11(3–4):141–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Evans L, Rhodes A, Alhazzani W, Antonelli M, Coopersmith CM, French C, Machado FR, McIntyre L, Ostermann M, Prescott HC, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2021. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1181–247.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Lange H, Jackel R. Usefulness of plasma lactate concentration in the diagnosis of acute abdominal disease. Eur J Surg. 1994;160(6–7):381–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brillantino A, Iacobellis F, Renzi A, Nasti R, Saldamarco L, Grillo M, Romano L, Castriconi M, Cittadini A, De Palma M, et al. Diagnostic value of arterial blood gas lactate concentration in the different forms of mesenteric ischemia. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2018;44(2):265–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ke L, Lin J, Doig GS, van Zanten ARH, Wang Y, Xing J, Zhang Z, Chen T, Zhou L, Jiang D, et al. Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care. 2022;26(1):46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonca A, Bruining H, Reinhart CK, Suter PM, Thijs LG. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22(7):707–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13(10):818–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rahman A, Hasan RM, Agarwala R, Martin C, Day AG, Heyland DK. Identifying critically-ill patients who will benefit most from nutritional therapy: further validation of the “modified NUTRIC” nutritional risk assessment tool. Clin Nutr. 2016;35(1):158–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Alejandro WS, Sofia VO, Pablo WA. Validation of the Broca index as the most practical method to calculate the ideal body weight. J Clin Invest Stud. 2018;1(1):1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Khosravani H, Shahpori R, Stelfox HT, Kirkpatrick AW, Laupland KB. Occurrence and adverse effect on outcome of hyperlactatemia in the critically ill. Crit Care. 2009;13(3):R90.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Cahill NE, Dhaliwal R, Day AG, Jiang X, Heyland DK. Nutrition therapy in the critical care setting: what is “best achievable” practice? An international multicenter observational study. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2):395–401.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Heyland DK, Ortiz A, Stoppe C, Patel JJ, Yeh DD, Dukes G, Chen YJ, Almansa C, Day AG. Incidence, risk factors, and clinical consequence of enteral feeding intolerance in the mechanically ventilated critically Ill: an analysis of a multicenter. Multiyear Database Crit Care Med. 2021;49(1):49–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Salciute-Simene E, Stasiunaitis R, Ambrasas E, Tutkus J, Milkevicius I, Sostakaite G, Klimasauskas A, Kekstas G. Impact of enteral nutrition interruptions on underfeeding in intensive care unit. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(3):1310–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kuslapuu M, Jogela K, Starkopf J, Reintam BA. The reasons for insufficient enteral feeding in an intensive care unit: A prospective observational study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2015;31(5):309–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Berger MM, Burgos R, Casaer MP, De Robertis E, Delgado JCL, Fraipont V, Goncalves-Pereira J, Pichard C, Stoppe C. Clinical nutrition issues in 2022: what is missing to trust supplemental parenteral nutrition (SPN) in ICU patients? Crit Care. 2022;26(1):271.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Rice TW, Mogan S, Hays MA, Bernard GR, Jensen GL, Wheeler AP. Randomized trial of initial trophic versus full-energy enteral nutrition in mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(5):967–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. National Heart L, Blood Institute Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Clinical Trials N, Rice TW, Wheeler AP, Thompson BT, Steingrub J, Hite RD, Moss M, Morris A, Dong N et al. Initial trophic vs full enteral feeding in patients with acute lung injury: the EDEN randomized trial. JAMA 2012, 307(8):795–803.

  33. Target Investigators ftACTG, Chapman M, Peake SL, Bellomo R, Davies A, Deane A, Horowitz M, Hurford S, Lange K, Little L et al. Energy-dense versus routine enteral nutrition in the critically Ill. N Engl J Med 2018, 379(19):1823–1834.

  34. Arabi YM, Aldawood AS, Haddad SH, Al-Dorzi HM, Tamim HM, Jones G, Mehta S, McIntyre L, Solaiman O, Sakkijha MH, et al. Permissive underfeeding or standard enteral feeding in critically Ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(25):2398–408.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Yeh YC, Wang MJ, Chao A, Ko WJ, Chan WS, Fan SZ, Tsai JC, Sun WZ. Correlation between early sublingual small vessel density and late blood lactate level in critically ill surgical patients. J Surg Res. 2013;180(2):317–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Mao Z, Liu G, Yu Q, Qi S, Lou Y, Liu C, Li Q, Xue C, Kang H, Hong Q, et al. Association between serum lactate levels and enteral feeding intolerance in septic patients treated with vasopressors: a retrospective cohort study. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(19):1240.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Berghofer A, Pischon T, Reinhold T, Apovian CM, Sharma AM, Willich SN. Obesity prevalence from a European perspective: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2008;8:200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Hurt RT, Frazier TH, McClave SA, Kaplan LM. Obesity epidemic: overview, pathophysiology, and the intensive care unit conundrum. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2011;35(5 Suppl):4S-13S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82070665).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Affiliated Wuxi People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi Medical Center, Nanjing Medical University, No. 299 Qingyang Road, Wuxi, 214043, China

    Yizhe Chen, Qiuhui Wang, Fei Gao, Hongyang Xu & Fengming Liang

  2. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Jinling Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Medical School, Nanjing University, No. 305 East Zhongshan Road, Nanjing, 210002, China

    Zirui Liu, Lu Ke & Jiajia Lin

  3. Research Institute of Critical Care Medicine and Emergency Rescue at Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

    Lu Ke

  4. Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

    Zheng-Yii Lee

  5. Department of Cardiac Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité, Berlin, Germany

    Zheng-Yii Lee & Christian Stoppe

  6. Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

    Christian Stoppe

  7. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Queen’s University, Angada 4, Kingston, ON, K7L 2V7, Canada

    Daren K. Heyland

  8. Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, Kingston General Hospital, Angada 4, Kingston, ON, K7L 2V7, Canada

    Daren K. Heyland

Authors
  1. Yizhe Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zirui Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qiuhui Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fei Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hongyang Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lu Ke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Zheng-Yii Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Christian Stoppe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Daren K. Heyland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Fengming Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jiajia Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

for the Chinese Critical Care Nutrition Trials Group (CCCNTG)

Contributions

JJL and FML equally contributed to the conception and design of the research; YZC, ZRL, QHW, and FG contributed to the data acquisition and data analysis; and HYX, LK, ZYL, CS, and DKH contributed to the data interpretation. YZC, JJL, and LK drafted the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fengming Liang or Jiajia Lin.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was a secondary analysis of a cluster-randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN12233792), which was approved by the ethics committee of Jinling Hospital (22017NZKY-019–02). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or next of kin.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Table S1. Univariable Cox analysis for 28-day mortality. Table S2. Sensitivity analysis for the relationship between enteral nutrition and 28-day mortality. Figure S1. Daily enteral nutrition delivery.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, Y., Liu, Z., Wang, Q. et al. Enhanced exclusive enteral nutrition delivery during the first 7 days is associated with decreased 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with normal lactate level: a post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial. Crit Care 28, 26 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13054-024-04813-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s13054-024-04813-6

Keywords

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535