4.2 Article

Clinical Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients Associated With the Use of Complex vs Weight-Only Predictive Energy Equations

期刊

JOURNAL OF PARENTERAL AND ENTERAL NUTRITION
卷 39, 期 7, 页码 864-869

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0148607114533127

关键词

ICU; mortality; length of stay; energy; predictive equation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The energy intake goal is important to achieving energy intake in critically ill patients, yet clinical outcomes associated with energy goals have not been reported. Methods: This secondary analysis used the Improving Nutrition Practices in the Critically III International Nutrition Surveys database from 2007-2009 to evaluate whether mortality or time to discharge alive is related to use of complex energy prediction equations vs weight only. The sample size was 5672 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) >= 4 days and a subset of 3356 in the ICU >= 12 days. Mortality and time to discharge alive were compared between groups by regression, controlling for age, sex, admission type, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, ICU geographic region, actual energy intake, and obesity. Results: There was no difference in mortality between the use of complex and weight-only equations (odds ratio [OR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-1.15), but obesity (OR, 0.83;95% CI, 0.71-0.96) and higher energy intake (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.56-0.76) had lower odds of mortality. Time to discharge alive was shorter in patients fed using weight-only equations (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23) in patients staying >= 4 days and with greater energy intake (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.06-1.34) in patients in the ICU >= 12 days. Conclusion: These data suggest that higher energy intake is important to survival and time to discharge alive. However, the analysis was limited by actual energy intake <70% of goal. Delivery of full goal intake will be needed to determine the relationship between the method of determining energy goal and clinical outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据