Energy and protein intakes of hospitalised patients with acute respiratory failure receiving non-invasive ventilation
Abstract
Background & aim Nutritional intake of patients in acute respiratory failure receiving non-invasive ventilation has not previously been described, and no protocols have been developed to guide practice to optimise nutritional status. We aimed to measure energy and protein intakes of patients in acute respiratory failure requiring non-invasive ventilation receiving standard hospital nutritional care. Methods Food and fluid intake forms were completed by nursing staff for all meals and mid meals for patients admitted with respiratory failure commencing on non-invasive ventilation. Intake was converted from quartiles of food consumed into energy and protein to enable comparison with estimated daily requirements using descriptive statistics. Multinomial stepwise regression analysis was used to determine factors associated with inadequate protein and energy intake. Results Over 283 total days of intake, 36 participants (67% female, aged 65 ± 9 years) achieved on average 1434 ± 627 kcal and 63 ± 29 g protein daily. Overall, 28 patients (78%, 95% CI: 61-90%) met less than 80% of estimated energy requirements and 27 patients (75%, 95% CI: 58-88%) met less than 80% of estimated protein requirements. Being fed orally, longer time on non-invasive ventilation and higher BMI were associated with poorer intakes. Better nutritional status on admission and measuring intake closer to hospital discharge was associated with improved intakes. Conclusion Patients with acute respiratory failure requiring non-invasive ventilation often had inadequate oral intake, particularly with increasing time on non-invasive ventilation, and earlier during their hospital admission. Development of protocols to optimise nutritional intake for these patients may improve outcomes and reduce regular readmission rates.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Seven randomized supplementation trials including 716 critically ill adult patients have shown beneficial effects, with mortality reduction compared to placebo, with follow up to six months after intervention.
“Seven randomized supplementation trials including 716 critically ill adult patients have been performed: they have shown beneficial effects, with mortality reduction when compared to placebo (302, 303) with follow up to six months after intervention.”
From ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. (2019) · cites this paper as [302]
No side effects have been observed in these vitamin D supplementation trials.
“No side effects have been observed.”
From ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. (2019) · cites this paper as [302]
Trial doses of vitamin D have varied between 200,000 and 540,000 units administered by enteral, intramuscular or intravenous routes.
“The trial doses have varied between 200,000 and 540,000 units administered by the enteral, intramuscular or intravenous routes.”
From ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. (2019) · cites this paper as [302]
These doses are far in excess of the daily recommended intakes (RDI) doses of 600 IU/day.
“These doses are far in excess of the daily recommended intakes (RDI) doses of 600 IU/day”
From ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. (2019) · cites this paper as [302]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit.
Singer, P., Blaser, A. R., Berger, M. M., Alhazzani, W., Calder, P. C., Casaer, M. P., Hiesmayr, M., Mayer, K., Montejo, J. C., Pichard, C., et al. (2019) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2018.08.037 · Cited by 2,904 · see citing works
ESPEN practical and partially revised guideline: Clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit
Singer, P., Blaser, A. R., Berger, M. M., Calder, P. C., Casaer, M., Hiesmayr, M., Mayer, K., Montejo-Gonzalez, J. C., Pichard, C., Preiser, J.-C., et al. (2023) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2023.07.011 · Cited by 793 · see citing works
- Authors
- Reeves, A., White, H., Sosnowski, K., Tran, K., Jones, M., & Palmer, M.
- Affiliations
- Logan Hospital (AU)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Reeves, Anneli
- White, Hayden
- Sosnowski, Kellie
- Tran, Khoa
- Palmer, Michelle
- Venue
- Clinical Nutrition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-12
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1068-1073
- ISSN
- 0261-5614 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1966956033
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 1.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Queensland Health
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Dysphagia Assessment and Management
- Keywords
- acute respiratory failure, non-invasive ventilation, energy intake, protein intake, nutritional status, hospitalized patients, oral feeding, dietary management, energy requirements, protein requirements
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Energy Intake, Dietary Proteins, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Inpatients, Intensive Care Units, Male, Middle Aged, Nutritional Requirements, Nutritional Status, Prospective Studies, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Respiratory Insufficiency, Noninvasive Ventilation
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