Musharaf Sadat

Permissive Underfeeding or Standard Enteral Feeding in Critically Ill Adults

BACKGROUND The appropriate caloric goal for critically ill adults is unclear. We evaluated the effect of restriction of nonprotein calories (permissive underfeeding), as compared with standard enteral feeding, on 90-day mortality among critically ill adults, with maintenance of the full recommended amount of protein in both groups. METHODS At seven centers, we randomly assigned 894 critically ill adults with a medical, surgical, or trauma admission category to permissive underfeeding (40 to 60% of calculated caloric requirements) or standard enteral feeding (70 to 100%) for up to 14 days while maintaining a similar protein intake in the two groups. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups; 96.8% of the patients were receiving mechanical ventilation. During the intervention period, the permissive-underfeeding group received fewer mean (±SD) calories than did the standard-feeding group (835±297 kcal per day vs. 1299±467 kcal per day, P<0.001; 46±14% vs. 71±22% of caloric requirements, P<0.001). Protein intake was similar in the two groups (57±24 g per day and 59±25 g per day, respectively; P=0.29). The 90-day mortality was similar: 121 of 445 patients (27.2%) in the permissive-underfeeding group and 127 of 440 patients (28.9%) in the standard-feeding group died (relative risk with permissive underfeeding, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.16; P=0.58). No serious adverse events were reported; there were no significant between-group differences with respect to feeding intolerance, diarrhea, infections acquired in the intensive care unit (ICU), or ICU or hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS Enteral feeding to deliver a moderate amount of nonprotein calories to critically ill adults was not associated with lower mortality than that associated with planned delivery of a full amount of nonprotein calories. (Funded by the King Abdullah International Medical Research Center; PermiT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN68144998.).

Permissive Underfeeding or Standard Enteral Feeding in High– and Low–Nutritional-Risk Critically Ill Adults. Post Hoc Analysis of the PermiT Trial

Rationale: The optimal nutritional strategy for critically ill adults at high nutritional risk is unclear. Objectives: To examine the effect of permissive underfeeding with full protein intake compared with standard feeding on 90‐day mortality in patients with different baseline nutritional risk. Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding versus Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial. Measurements and Main Results: Nutritional risk was categorized by the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, with high nutritional risk defined as a score of 5‐9 and low nutritional risk as a score of 0‐4. Additional analyses were performed by categorizing patients by body mass index, prealbumin, transferrin, phosphate, urinary urea nitrogen, and nitrogen balance. Based on the Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, 378 of 894 (42.3%) patients were categorized as high nutritional risk and 516 of 894 (57.7%) as low nutritional risk. There was no association between feeding strategy and mortality in the two categories; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56‐1.27) for high nutritional risk and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.64‐1.61) for low nutritional risk (interaction P = 0.53). Findings were similar in analyses using other definitions, with the exception of prealbumin. The association of permissive underfeeding versus standard feeding and 90‐day mortality differed when patients were categorized by baseline prealbumin level (≤0.10 g/L: aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31‐1.05]; >0.10 and ≤0.15 g/L: aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.42‐1.48]; >0.15 g/L: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.80, 3.01]; interaction P = 0.009). Conclusions: Among patients with high and low nutritional risk, permissive underfeeding with full protein intake was associated with similar outcomes as standard feeding.

Feasibility of Using Convalescent Plasma Immunotherapy for MERS-CoV Infection, Saudi Arabia.

Efficacy testing will be challenging because of the small pool of donors with sufficiently high antibody titers.

Permissive underfeeding versus target enteral feeding in adult critically ill patients (PermiT Trial): a study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BackgroundNutritional support is an essential part of the management of critically ill patients. However, optimal caloric intake has not been systematically evaluated. We aim to compare two strategies of enteral feeding: permissive underfeeding versus target feeding.Method/DesignThis is an international multi-center randomized controlled trial in critically ill medical- surgical adult patients. Using a centralized allocation, 862 patients will be randomized to permissive underfeeding or target feeding. Patients in the permissive group receive 50% (acceptable range is 40% to 60%) of the calculated caloric requirement, while those in the targeted group receive 100% (acceptable range 70% to 100%) of the calculated caloric requirement. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include ICU and hospital mortality, 28-day, and 180-day mortality as well as health care-associated infections, organ failure, and length of stay in the ICU and hospital. The trial has 80% power to detect an 8% absolute reduction in 90-day mortality assuming a baseline risk of death of 25% at an alpha level of 0.05.DiscussionPatient recruitment started in November 2009 and is currently active in five centers. The Data Monitoring Committee advised continuation of the trial after the first interim analysis. The study is expected to finish by November 2013.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68144998

Structure, Organization, and Delivery of Critical Care in Asian Icus.

Objectives:Despite being the epicenter of recent pandemics, little is known about critical care in Asia. Our objective was to describe the structure, organization, and delivery in Asian ICUs. Design:A web-based survey with the following domains: hospital organizational characteristics, ICU organizational characteristics, staffing, procedures and therapies available in the ICU and written protocols and policies. Setting:ICUs from 20 Asian countries from April 2013 to January 2014. Countries were divided into low-, middle-, and high-income based on the 2011 World Bank Classification. Subjects:ICU directors or representatives. Measurements and Main Results:Of 672 representatives, 335 (50%) responded. The average number of hospital beds was 973 (SE of the mean [SEM], 271) with 9% (SEM, 3%) being ICU beds. In the index ICUs, the average number of beds was 21 (SEM, 3), of single rooms 8 (SEM, 2), of negative-pressure rooms 3 (SEM, 1), and of board-certified intensivists 7 (SEM, 3). Most ICUs (65%) functioned as closed units. The nurse-to-patient ratio was 1:1 or 1:2 in most ICUs (84%). On multivariable analysis, single rooms were less likely in low-income countries (p = 0.01) and nonreferral hospitals (p = 0.01); negative-pressure rooms were less likely in private hospitals (p = 0.03) and low-income countries (p = 0.005); 1:1 nurse-to-patient ratio was lower in private hospitals (p = 0.005); board-certified intensivists were less common in low-income countries (p < 0.0001) and closed ICUs were less likely in private (p = 0.02) and smaller hospitals (p < 0.001). Conclusions:This survey highlights considerable variation in critical care structure, organization, and delivery in Asia, which was related to hospital funding source and size, and country income. The lack of single and negative-pressure rooms in many Asian ICUs should be addressed before any future pandemic of severe respiratory illness.

Thromboprophylaxis using combined intermittent pneumatic compression and pharmacologic prophylaxis versus pharmacologic prophylaxis alone in critically ill patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Author details Intensive Care Department, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, ICU 1425, PO Box 22490, Riyadh 11426, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care Department, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Department of Critical Care Medicine, King Khalid University, Assir Central Hospital, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Medical/Surgical ICU, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada. Intensive Care Department, King Abdulaziz Hospital, Al Ahsa, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Department of Intensive Care Services, Prince Sultan Military Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. International Extended Care Centers, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Intensive Care Royal North Shore Hospital of Sydney and Sydney Adventist Hospital, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Intensive Care Department, King Abdulaziz Medical City, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Received: 17 August 2016 Accepted: 17 August 2016