Supplemental parenteral nutrition
Dietary SupplementSupplemental parenteral nutrition OLIMEL N12E (Baxter Healthcare Corporation)
NCT Number: NCT03292237
Despite the widespread use of nutrition therapy, no large scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated positive outcomes with delivery of nutrition therapy early in critical illness, with some showing no effect with delayed nutrition or even harm.
There are several possible reasons for the lack of observed benefit from RCTs to date; interventions have been short in duration (usually 3-10 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission), perhaps applied at the incorrect time in regards to the patients metabolism and recovery, do not consider the patients nutrition risk, and have not addressed what happens to nutrition intake post ICU in critically ill individuals. This may explain why RCTs to date have not observed any positive associations with the delivery of nutrition; our focus to date may have been on the wrong stage of illness. A future study is thus urgently needed, which addresses the deficiencies in current RCTs by optimizing nutrition delivery for the whole hospital stay and collecting meaningful clinical, process and outcome data, which will potentially inform a larger trial of a similar nature.
This initial study aims to determine whether optimization of energy using a pre-tested supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN) strategy in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and an intensive nutrition intervention in the post ICU period will deliver more total energy than standard nutrition care during hospital admission in a group of critically ill patients with at least one organ system failure.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Phase 2
Blacktown Hospital, Blacktown, New South Wales, Australia
Background:
Nutrition is a commonly provided therapy in critical illness, but data about effectiveness is sparse. Best practice guidelines recommend enteral nutrition (EN), a specialised solution delivered into the gastrointestinal tract, as the first line of nutrition therapy. The majority of best practice guidelines also recommend delivery of energy and protein amounts close to predicted requirements in critical illness over the course of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, however the only evidence to support this is from observational data. Although recommended that energy and protein requirements be met, and observational data suggests this is of benefit, there are practical challenges with the provision of EN. International practice surveys report the average energy and protein provided is approximately 59% of the patients predicted requirements, for multifactorial reasons. The addition of parenteral (intravenous) nutrition has been proposed as a method to provide additional energy when EN is insufficient, termed supplemental parenteral nutrition (PN). The ability of this strategy to deliver additional energy and protein to patients during critical illness has been proven in several feasibility/pilot trials, but the benefit on clinical and functional outcomes is unknown.
Despite observational data suggesting benefit when energy and protein delivery is optimised close to requirements, no large scale randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have confirmed improved clinical outcomes in critical illness, with some showing no effect with delayed nutrition or even harm. There are several possible reasons for the lack of observed benefit from RCTs to date; the interventions may have been applied at a time when the patient's metabolism is not in a phase of recovery; interventions have been short in duration and; studies have not addressed what happens to nutrition intake in the post ICU period of hospitalisation in critically ill individuals.
Aims:
To determine whether the use of a pre-tested supplemental PN strategy in the ICU and an intensive nutrition intervention after discharge to the hospital ward is feasible and will deliver more total energy than standard nutrition care over the entire hospital stay, in critically ill patients with at least one organ system failure.
A further aim is to develop a research program that will determine whether optimisation of energy to critically ill patients over the entire period of hospitalisation improves clinically-meaningful outcomes.
Hypothesis:
In critically ill patients with at least one organ failure, the use of a supplemental PN strategy in ICU and an intensive nutrition intervention on the hospital ward will lead to an increase in daily energy delivery of at least 15% over the entire hospital stay when compared to standard care.
Fifteen percent has been estimated as the minimum acceptable clinical difference between the two groups.
Objectives:
The major objectives are:
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Patients in intensive care who meet all of the following will be eligible:
Exclusion criteria
Patients will be excluded if:
Supplemental parenteral nutrition OLIMEL N12E (Baxter Healthcare Corporation)
Time frame: Day 28
Daily energy delivered from nutrition therapy
Time frame: Day 28
Daily protein intake, Energy and protein intake by location (ICU and ward)
Time frame: Day 28
Duration of hospital stay in survivors and non-survivors
Time frame: Day 28
Ventilator Free Days (VFDs) at study day 28
Time frame: Day 28
Total blood stream infection rate
Time frame: Day 28
Duration of ICU stay in survivors and non survivors
Time frame: Day 28
Duration of Mechanical Ventilation to study day 28 in survivors and non-survivors
Time frame: Day 28
ICU mobility scale at ICU discharge
Time frame: Day 28
In hospital and 28 day mortality
Time frame: Day 28
Number of blood stream infections to day 28, time to any blood stream infection
Time frame: Day 28
Weight at hospital discharge
Time frame: 90 days
Clinical frailty score
Time frame: 90 days
Health related quality of life assessment using EQ5D-5L. Each dimension has 5 levels ranging from no problems (1) to extreme problems (5), there is no overall score. It also has a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging 0-100 with 0 being worst imaginable health state and 100 being best imaginable health state
Time frame: 90 days
WHODAS is a 12 point disability assessment with a raw score range of 0-48. 0 is no disability and 48 being full disability
Time frame: 180 days
Health related quality of life assessment using EQ5D-5L. Each dimension has 5 levels ranging from no problems (1) to extreme problems (5), there is no overall score. It also has a visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging 0-100 with 0 being worst imaginable health state and 100 being best imaginable health state
Time frame: 180 days
WHODAS is a 12 point disability assessment with a raw score range of 0-48. 0 is no disability and 48 being full disability
Time frame: 180 days
Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY)
Time frame: 180 days
Cost per life year gained (LYG)
Time frame: 180 dyas
Clinical frailty score
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre
Other
Intensive Nutrition Therapy Compared to Usual Care in Critically Ill Adults: A Randomised Pilot Trial
Acronym: INTENT
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT04143503
Critical Illness, Disease Attributes
Vienna, Austria
View Trial DetailsNCT01891682
Critical Illness, Disease Attributes
Cleveland, Ohio, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT00522730
Critical Illness, Digestive System Diseases
Brussels, Belgium
View Trial DetailsNCT07411014
Critical Illness, Disease Attributes
Seoul, South Korea
View Trial Details