Harvey 2014.
Methods | RCT, multi‐centre, 2‐arm, parallel design | |
Participants |
Total number of participants: 2400 Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary diagnoses
Baseline characteristics EN group
PN group
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 |
|
|
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 |