Table 3.
Baseline characteristics
| Baseline characteristics | Study | Units |
Study arms |
Significance of results | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPN | LPN | EN | ||||
| Age |
Bauer 2000 [11] |
Years; mean ± SD |
53 ± 18 |
x |
55 ± 18 |
p = ns |
| Cahill 2011 [12] |
64 ± 15.7 |
62.8 ± 16.3 |
59.3 ± 16.8 |
p = 0.095 |
||
| Casaer 2011 [13] |
64 ± 14 |
64 ± 15 |
x |
p = 0.53 |
||
| Doig 2013 [14] |
68.4 ± 15.1 |
x |
68.6 ± 14.3 |
NR |
||
| Heidegger 2013 [15] |
x |
61 ± 16 |
60 ± 16 |
NR |
||
| Kutsogiannis 2011 [16] |
62.3 ± 17.9 |
56.4 ± 17.5 |
58.4 ± 17.9 |
p = 0.02^ |
||
| Gender |
Bauer 2000 [11] |
Male sex; no (%) |
40 (66.7) |
x |
42 (70) |
p = ns |
| Cahill 2011 [12] |
54 (65.1) |
54 (68.4) |
303 (56) |
p = 0.13 |
||
| Casaer 2011 [13] |
1,486 (64.3) |
1,486 (63.8) |
x |
p = 0.75 |
||
| Doig 2013 [14] |
400 (58.7) |
x |
420 (61.6) |
NR |
||
| Heidegger 2013 [15] |
x |
110 (72) |
105 (69%) |
NR |
||
| Kutsogiannis 2011 [16] |
121 (64.4) |
105 (61.8) |
1,563 (61.0) |
p = 0.66 |
||
| BMI |
Bauer 2000 [11] |
kg/m2; mean ± SD |
26 ± 5 |
x |
26 ± 5 |
p = ns |
| Cahill 2011 [12] |
kg/m2; mean ± SD |
26.1 ± 5.3 |
26.8 ± 5.6 |
27.4 ± 7.3 |
p = 0.28 |
|
| <25 kg/m2; no (%) |
41 (49.4) |
32 (40.5) |
225 (41.6) |
p = 0.054* |
||
| 25 to 30 kg/m2; no (%) |
26 (31.3) |
25 (31.7) |
166 (31.3) |
|||
| >30 kg/m2; no (%) |
16 (19.3) |
22 (27.8) |
140 (25.9) |
|||
| Casaer 2011 [13] |
<25 kg/m2; no (%) |
988 (42.7%) |
1,031 (44.2%) |
x |
p = 0.34 |
|
| 25 to 30 kg/m2; no (%) |
852 (36.9) |
864 (37.1) |
x |
|||
| >30 kg/m2; no (%) |
472 (20.4) |
433 (18.6) |
x |
|||
| Doig 2013 [14] |
kg/m2; mean ± SD |
27.9 ± 6.8 |
x |
28.5 ± 6.9 |
NR |
|
| >30 kg/m2; no (%) |
190 (27.9) |
x |
224 (32.8) |
|||
| <18.5 kg/m2; no (%) |
26 (3.8) |
x |
20 (2.9) |
|||
| Heidegger 2013 [15] |
kg/m2; mean ± SD |
x |
25.4 ± 3.9 |
26.4 ± 4.6 |
NR |
|
| Kutsogiannis 2011 [16] |
kg/m2; mean ± SD |
24.5 ± 4.7 |
27.0 ± 6.9 |
27. 2 ± 7.0 |
p < 0.0001^ |
|
| <25 kg/m2; no (%) |
120 (63.8) |
74 (43.5) |
1,143 (44.6) |
p < 0.0003^ |
||
| 25 to 30 kg/m2; no (%) |
47 (25.0) |
53 (31.6) |
756 (29.7) |
|||
| >30 kg/m2; no (%) |
21 (11.1) |
41 (24.1) |
649 (25.3) |
|||
| Severity of illness |
Bauer 2000 [11] |
SAPS II score; mean ± SD |
43 ± 14 |
x |
41 ± 13 |
p = ns |
| Cahill 2011 [12] |
APACHE II score; mean ± SD |
25.2 ± 8.5 |
24.9 ± 8.4 |
24.3 ± 8.5 |
p = 0.902 |
|
| Casaer 2011 [13] |
APACHE II score; mean ± SD |
23 ± 11 |
23 ± 10 |
x |
p = 0.85 |
|
| Doig 2013 [14] |
APACHE II score; mean ± SD |
20.5 (7.4) |
x |
21.5 (7.8) |
NR |
|
| Heidegger 2013 [15] |
SAPS II score; mean ± SD |
x |
49 ± 17 |
47 ± 15 |
NR |
|
| APACHE II score; mean ± SD |
x |
22 ± 7 |
23 ± 7 |
NR |
||
| Kutsogiannis 2011 [16] |
APACHE II score; mean ± SD |
22.6 ± 8.4 |
23.3 ± 7.9 |
22.0 ± 7.9 |
p = 0.11 |
|
| Amounts of calories delivered |
Bauer 2000 [11] |
Enteral intake; mean kcal/kg/day on day 7 |
14.8 ± 4.6 |
x |
13.2 ± 4.3 |
p = 0.6 |
| Parenteral intake; mean kcal/kg/day on day 7 |
9.9 ± 3.1 |
x |
1.1 ± 0.3 |
p < 0.0001 |
||
| Total intake; mean kcal/kg/day on day 7 |
24.6 ± 4.9 |
x |
14.2 ± 6.5 |
p < 0.0001 |
||
| Cahill 2011 [12] |
Enteral intake; mean kcal/kg/day ± SD |
5.1 ± 4.9 |
4.4 ± 3.9 |
8.8 ± 5.3 |
p < 0.001† |
|
| Parenteral intake; mean kcal/kg/day ± SD |
12.0 ± 6.3 |
8.5 ± 5.9 |
0 |
p < 0.001 |
||
| Total intake; mean kcal/kg/day ± SD |
17.5 ± 5.8 |
13.6 ± 6.3 |
9.9 ± 5.5 |
p < 0.001 |
||
| Casaer 2011 [13] |
Enteral intake; median kcal/kg/day on day 7, resp day 8 |
4 vs 4 |
6 vs 6 |
x |
NR‡ |
|
| Parenteral intake; median kcal/kg/day on day 7, resp day 8 |
20 vs 20 |
3 vs 4 |
x |
|||
| Total intake; median kcal/kg/day on day 7 |
27 vs 26 |
13 vs 21 |
x |
|||
| Doig 2013 [14] |
Mean kcal/pt/day on day 1, resp day 7 |
400 vs 1,300 |
x |
0 vs 1,300 |
NR‡ |
|
| Heidegger 2013 [15] |
kcal/kg/day; mean energy delivery between days 4 and 8 ± SD |
x |
28 ± 5 |
20 ± 7 |
p < 0.0001 |
|
| Kutsogiannis 2011 [16] |
Enteral intake; mean kcal/kg/day ± SD |
10.2 ± 6.4 |
7.3 ± 5.1 |
14.3 ± 6.5 |
p < 0.001 |
|
| Parenteral intake; mean kcal/kg/day ± SD |
9.0 ± 5.9 |
7.6 ± 5.9 |
0 |
p = 0.02 |
||
| Total intake; mean kcal/kg/day ± SD |
19.5 ± 6.2 |
15.7 ± 6.1 |
15.2 ± 6.5 |
p < 0.001 |
||
| Amounts of proteins delivered |
Bauer 2000 [11] |
|
NR |
x |
NR |
|
| Cahill 2011 [12] |
Adequacy of protein (%); mean ± SD |
71.5 ± 24.9 |
53.2 ± 22.7 |
38.7 ± 21.6 |
p < 0.001 |
|
| Casaer 2011 [13] |
|
NR |
NR |
x |
|
|
| Doig 2013 [14] |
|
NR |
x |
NR |
|
|
| Heidegger 2013 [15] |
g/kg/day; mean protein delivery between day 4 and 8 ± SD |
x |
1.2 ± 0.2 |
0.8 ± 0.3 |
p < 0.0001 |
|
| Kutsogiannis 2011 [16] |
Enteral intake; mean g/kg/day ± SD |
0.53 ± 0.33 |
0.47 ± 0.29 |
0.77 ± 0.35 |
p < 0.0001 |
|
| Parenteral intake; mean g/kg/day ± SD |
0.63 ± 0.39 |
0.71 ± 0.40 |
0 |
p = 0.48 |
||
| Total intake; mean g/kg/day ± SD |
0.94 ± 0.40 |
0.77 ± 0.30 |
0.77 ± 0.35 |
p < 0.0001 |
||
| Type of nutrition | Bauer 2000 [11] |
EN: modular polymeric diet: protein (20%), polyunsaturated fats (30%), carbohydrates (50%), nonsoluble fibers, sodium chloride (2 g/l), potassium chloride (3 g/l) and a standard solution of hydro- and liposoluble vitamins |
||||
| PN: 3-in-1 solution of carbohydrates, fat and protein, Vitrimix KV and hydrosoluble vitamins, Soluvit | ||||||
| Placebo: sodium chloride 0.9% with intralipid 20% (50 ml/l) and Soluvit (10 ml/l) | ||||||
| Cahill 2011 [12] |
NR |
|||||
| Casaer 2011 [13] |
EN: mainly Osmolite |
|||||
| EPN: intravenous 20% glucose solution on days 1 and 2. On day 3: PN was initiated | ||||||
| LPN: intravenous 5% glucose solution. On day 8: PN was initiated | ||||||
| PN: trace elements, minerals (potassium, phosphate, magnesium) and vitamins | ||||||
| Doig 2013 [14] |
Standard care: was defined pragmatically and not via protocol. The attending clinician selected the route, starting rate, metabolic targets and composition of nutrition. |
|||||
| PN: standard parenteral nutrition from a ready-to-mix three-chamber bag containing amino acids, glucose, lipids, and electrolytes (Kabiven G19%). Trace elements, minerals and vitamins were added as clinically appropriate. | ||||||
| Heidegger 2013 [15] |
EN: polymeric, fibre-enriched formulas, containing 1.05 to 1.62 kcal/ml of energy (18% proteins, 29% lipids (8% medium-chain triglycerides), 53% carbohydrates) |
|||||
| PN: 0.62 to 1.37 kcal/ml of energy (20% proteins, 29% lipids (15% medium-chain triglycerides), 51% carbohydrates). | ||||||
| Kutsogiannis 2011 [16] | NR | |||||
EPN, early parenteral nutrition; LPN, late parenteral nutrition; EN, enteral nutrition; SD, standard deviation; x, not applicable; p, p-value; ns, nonsignificant; NR, not reported; no, number of patients; %, percentage; kg/m2, weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared; SAPS II score, simplified acute physiology score; APACHE II score, score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (range from 0 to 71, with higher scores indicating a greater severity of illness); kcal, kilocalories; kg, kilograms; resp, respectively; vs, versus; g, grams; PN, parenteral nutrition; l, liters.
NB: studies use different definitions for EPN, LPN and EN. ^, comparing EPN versus EN and EPN versus LPN; *, in this EN group information of 10 patients is missing; †, comparing EPN versus EN and LPN versus EN; ‡, these are estimated values from a figure, as no values are given.