Nutrition practices in Australia and New Zealand in response to evolving evidence: Results of three point-prevalence audits.
Calorie dose
Calorie prescription
Critical care
Enteral nutrition
Practice change
Journal
Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses
ISSN: 1036-7314
Titre abrégé: Aust Crit Care
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9207852
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Aug 2024
22 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
22
04
2024
revised:
05
07
2024
accepted:
21
07
2024
medline:
24
8
2024
pubmed:
24
8
2024
entrez:
23
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The Augmented versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) was a 4000-patient trial in which augmented enteral calorie dose did not influence outcomes. We aimed to quantify practice change following TARGET. Three single-day, prospective, multicentre, point-prevalence audits of adult patients receiving enteral nutrition (EN) in participating Australian and New Zealand intensive care units at 10:00 AM were conducted: (i) 2010 (before conducting TARGET); (ii) 2018 (immediately before publishing TARGET results); and (iii) 2020 (2 years after TARGET publication). Data included baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and nutrition data. Data are n (%), mean ± standard deviation, or median [interquartile range]. Differences in enteral calorie prescription between 2018 and 2020 were compared using the Mann-Whitney test. The percentage of patients receiving EN (2010 42%, 2018 38%, 2020 33%; P = 0.012) and the prescription of calorie-dense EN formula (≥1.5 kcal/ml) (2010 33%, 2018 24%, 2020 23%; P = 0.038) decreased over time. However, when comparing prepublication and postpublication (2018-2020), calorie dose and calorie density were similar: 22.9 ± 8.6 versus 23.4 ± 12.8 kcal/kg/day (P = 0.816) and <1.5 kcal/ml: 76 versus 77% (P = 0.650), respectively. In Australian and New Zealand intensive care units, enteral calorie dose and calorie density of prescribed EN were similar before TARGET publication and 2 years later.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Augmented versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) was a 4000-patient trial in which augmented enteral calorie dose did not influence outcomes.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to quantify practice change following TARGET.
METHODS
METHODS
Three single-day, prospective, multicentre, point-prevalence audits of adult patients receiving enteral nutrition (EN) in participating Australian and New Zealand intensive care units at 10:00 AM were conducted: (i) 2010 (before conducting TARGET); (ii) 2018 (immediately before publishing TARGET results); and (iii) 2020 (2 years after TARGET publication). Data included baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and nutrition data. Data are n (%), mean ± standard deviation, or median [interquartile range]. Differences in enteral calorie prescription between 2018 and 2020 were compared using the Mann-Whitney test.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The percentage of patients receiving EN (2010 42%, 2018 38%, 2020 33%; P = 0.012) and the prescription of calorie-dense EN formula (≥1.5 kcal/ml) (2010 33%, 2018 24%, 2020 23%; P = 0.038) decreased over time. However, when comparing prepublication and postpublication (2018-2020), calorie dose and calorie density were similar: 22.9 ± 8.6 versus 23.4 ± 12.8 kcal/kg/day (P = 0.816) and <1.5 kcal/ml: 76 versus 77% (P = 0.650), respectively.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
In Australian and New Zealand intensive care units, enteral calorie dose and calorie density of prescribed EN were similar before TARGET publication and 2 years later.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39179491
pii: S1036-7314(24)00208-X
doi: 10.1016/j.aucc.2024.07.079
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. All rights reserved.