TY  - JOUR
AU  - Deane, AM
AU  - Little, L
AU  - Bellomo, R
AU  - Chapman, MJ
AU  - Davies, AR
AU  - Ferrie, S
AU  - Horowitz, M
AU  - Hurford, S
AU  - Lange, K
AU  - Litton, E
AU  - Mackle, D
AU  - O'Connor, S
AU  - Parker, J
AU  - Peake, SL
AU  - Presneill, JJ
AU  - Ridley, EJ
AU  - Singh, V
AU  - van Haren, F
AU  - Williams, P
AU  - Young, P
AU  - Iwashyna, TJ
Y2  - 2020/12/22
Y1  - 2020/04/01
SN  - 1073-449X
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/11343/257965
AB  - Rationale: The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared with a lesser amount of calories are unknown.Objectives: Our hypotheses were that achieving approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness would increase quality-of-life scores, return to work, and key life activities and reduce death and disability 6 months later.Methods: We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3,957 mechanically ventilated critically ill adults allocated to energy-dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition.Measurements and Main Results: Participants assigned energy-dense nutrition received more calories (percent recommended energy intake, mean [SD]; energy-dense: 103% [28] vs. usual: 69% [18]). Mortality at Day 180 was similar (560/1,895 [29.6%] vs. 539/1,920 [28.1%]; relative risk 1.05 [95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.16]). At a median (interquartile range) of 185 (182-193) days after randomization, 2,492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality-of-life questionnaire visual analog scale, median [interquartile range]: 75 [60-85]; group difference: 0 [95% confidence interval, 0-0]). Similar numbers of participants returned to work with no difference in hours worked or effectiveness at work (n = 818). There was no observed difference in disability (n = 1,208) or participation in key life activities (n = 705).Conclusions: The delivery of approximately 100% compared with 70% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness does not improve quality of life or functional outcomes or increase the number of survivors 6 months later.
LA  - English
PB  - AMER THORACIC SOC
T1  - Outcomes Six Months after Delivering 100% or 70% of Enteral Calorie Requirements during Critical Illness (TARGET) A Randomized Controlled Trial
DO  - 10.1164/rccm.201909-1810OC
IS  - American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
VL  - 201
IS  - 7
SP  - 814-822
L1  - /bitstream/handle/11343/257965/Deane%20AJRCCM%202020%20TARGET%20D180.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=n
ER  -