Cited by 169Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyHyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patientsSepsis Diagnosis and Treatment

Parenteral with enteral nutrition in the critically ill

Bauer, P., Charpentier, C., Bouchet, C., Nace, L., Raffy, F., Gaconnet, N.·2000·Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

Objective To determine whether nutrient intake by early enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition improves levels of retinol-binding protein and prealbumin (primary endpoint) and reduce morbidity and mortality (secondary endpoint) in ICU patients. Design Prospective, double-blind, and randomized, placebo-controlled study. Setting Two intensive care units in a tertiary institution. Patients and participants 120 patients in two groups of 60. Interventions Patients received either enteral plus parenteral nutrition (treatment group) or enteral nutrition plus placebo (placebo group) for 4-7 days after initiation of nutritional support. Measurements and results Retinol-binding protein (P = 0.0496) and prealbumin (P = 0.0369) increased significantly in the treatment group from day 0 to day 7. There was no reduction in morbidity in ICU. There was no difference in OMEGA score (263 vs. 244) and length of stay in the ICU (16.9 vs. 17.3), but a reduction in length of stay at hospital (31.2+/-18.5 vs. 33.7+/-27.7, P = 0.0022). Mortality on day 90 (17 vs. 18) and after 2 years (24 vs. 24) was identical. Conclusions Although it enhances nutrient intake and corrects nutritional parameters such as RBP and prealbumin more rapidly, within 1 week, supplemental parenteral nutrition has no clinically relevant effect on outcome in ICU patients at the early phase of nutritional support.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s001340051278

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The primary outcomes of smaller studies comparing early PN with other modalities did not differ between groups.

    “The primary outcomes of the smaller studies comparing early PN with other modalities did not differ between groups (152, 153).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bauer, P., Charpentier, C., Bouchet, C., Nace, L., Raffy, F., & Gaconnet, N.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Nancy (FR)
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
2000-07
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
893-900
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W1983521019
Cited by
169
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
Keywords
parenteral nutrition, enteral nutrition, critically ill patients, retinol-binding protein, prealbumin, dietary biomarkers, nutritional support, ICU length of stay, mortality, morbidity
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Energy Intake, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Double-Blind Method, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Parenteral Nutrition, Prealbumin, Prospective Studies, Retinol-Binding Proteins, Hospital Mortality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review