Table 4.
Primary end points in included studies and results for EPN, LPN and EN groups
| Primary end points |
Studies |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
RCT |
Prospective observational study |
|||||
| Bauer 2000[[11]] | Casaer 2011[[13]] | Doig 2013[[14]] | Heidegger 2013[[15]] | Cahill 2011 [[12]] | Kutsogiannis 2011[[16]] | |
| ICU length of stay (median days) |
x |
3 days (LPN) vs 4 days (EPN); HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; p = 0.04 |
x |
x |
x |
x |
| Mortality; day 60 |
x |
x |
22.8% (standard care) vs 21.5% (EPN), RD −1.26%; 95% CI −6.6 to 4.1; p = 0.60 |
x |
x |
x |
| Nosocomial infection between days 9 to 28 |
x |
x |
x |
27% (EN + LPN) vs 38% (EN); HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; p = 0.0338 |
x |
x |
| Alive discharge from hospital |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
EN + EPN vs EN: HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96; EN + LPN vs EN: HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.81 |
| Retinol-binding protein (RBP) |
Significant increase in EN + EPN vs EN + placebo from day 0 to day 7; p = 0.0496 |
x |
x |
x |
x |
x |
| Prealbumin | Significant increase in EPN vs placebo (day 0 to day 7); p = 0.0369 | x | x | x | x | x |
RCT, randomized control trial; ICU, intensive care unit; x, not investigated as a primary end point; LPN, late parenteral nutrition; EPN, early parenteral nutrition; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; p, p-value; vs, versus; RD, risk difference; EN, enteral nutrition. NB: studies used different definitions for EPN, LPN and EN. In the study by Cahill et al. [12], no primary end point was described.