Skip to main content
. 2018 Jun 8;2018(6):CD012276. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012276.pub2

Harvey 2014.

Methods RCT, multi‐centre, 2‐arm, parallel design
Participants Total number of participants: 2400
Inclusion criteria
  1. ≥ 18 years of age

  2. Expected to require nutritional support for ≥ 2 days, within 36 hours of admission to ICU that was expected to last ≥ 3 days


Exclusion criteria
  1. Participants could not be fed through either PN or EN route

  2. Received nutritional support in previous 7 days

  3. Had a gastrostomy or jejunostomy in situ

  4. Were pregnant

  5. Not expected to be in the UK for next 6 months


Primary diagnoses
  1. Study authors reported co‐existing illnesses as liver, renal, respiratory, cardiovascular, and immunodeficiency


Baseline characteristics
EN group
  1. Age, mean (SD): 62.9 (± 15.4) years

  2. Gender, M/F: 725/472

  3. APACHE II, mean (SD): 19.6 (± 7.0)

  4. SOFA, mean (SD): 9.6 (± 3.3)


PN group
  1. Age, mean (SD): 63.3 (± 15.1) years

  2. Gender, M/F: 689/502

  3. APACHE II, mean (SD): 19.6 (± 6.9)

  4. SOFA, mean (SD): 9.5 (± 3.4)


Country: UK
Setting: 33 ICUs
Interventions EN group
n = 1200; 1195 analysed; participants lost to follow‐up were not included in analysis, but protocol deviations were. See note
Details: nasogastric or nasojejunal tube feeding for 5 days. Time of initiation of feeding: median 22 (IQR 16 to 28) hours. Target rate of 25 kcal/kg bodyweight/day, with goal to reach target within 48 to 72 hours. Prokinetics given for GRV cut‐offs at 200 to 500 mL. Use of international guidelines for glycaemic management, plus target level for serum glucose of < 180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L)
Caloric intake received, mean (SD): 74 (± 44) kcal/kg
PN group
n = 1200; 1188 analysed; participants lost to follow‐up were not included in analysis, but protocol deviations were
Details: central venous catheter placement. Target rate of delivery as for EN. Equivalent nutritional formula as EN, with same glycaemic management. IV feeding for 5 days, then weaned to gastric feeding. Time of initiation of feeding of feeding: median 24 (IQR 17 to 30) hours
Caloric intake received, mean (SD): 89 (SD ± 44) kcal/kg
Outcomes
  1. All‐cause mortality at 30 days, discharge, 90 days, and 1 year

  2. Length of ICU and hospital stay

  3. Infectious and non‐infectious complications (including hyperglycaemia, defined as any new episode of hyperglycaemia during study period)

  4. Duration of organ support

Notes Funding/declarations of interest: NIHR
Study dates: June 2011 to March 2014
Protocol deviations: EN: 30 did not receive assigned nutritional support, 26 received no nutritional support, 4 received PN. PN: 36 did not receive assigned nutritional support, 24 received no nutritional support, 12 received EN. All analysed as ITT. Additionally, there was a cross‐over of 18 participants in the EN group and 81 participants in the PN group, but these occurred towards the end of feeding and did not constitute protocol deviations.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Adequate sequence generation. 24‐hour telephone randomization system with computer algorithm used to balance groups in ICU
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Telephone randomization system and we assumed that allocation was concealed from investigators
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) 
 All outcomes High risk No details and we assumed investigators made no attempts to blind personnel
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes (except mortality) Unclear risk No details
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 Mortality Low risk Lack of blinding unlikely to influence outcome data for mortality
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 All outcomes Low risk Small number lost to follow‐up and not included in ITT analysis. Some protocol deviations but less than 10%; ITT analysis used for these
Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Prospective clinical trials registration ISRCTN17386141. Protocol outcomes were consistent with outcomes reported in published study
Baseline characteristics Low risk Appear comparable
Other bias Unclear risk Not enough information on nutritional formula to make judgement. "Standard stock supply" used. Glycaemic controls appeared the same