Cited by 401Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologySepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders

The effect of higher protein dosing in critically ill patients with high nutritional risk (EFFORT Protein): an international, multicentre, pragmatic, registry-based randomised trial

Heyland, Daren K, Patel, Jayshil, Compher, Charlene, Rice, Todd W, Bear, Danielle E, Lee, Zheng-Yii, González, Victoria C, O'Reilly, Kevin +7 more·2023·The Lancet

Abstract

Background On the basis of low-quality evidence, international critical care nutrition guidelines recommend a wide range of protein doses. The effect of delivering high-dose protein during critical illness is unknown. We aimed to test the hypothesis that a higher dose of protein provided to critically ill patients would improve their clinical outcomes. Methods This international, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, registry-based, single-blinded, randomised trial was undertaken in 85 intensive care units (ICUs) across 16 countries. We enrolled nutritionally high-risk adults (≥18 years) undergoing mechanical ventilation to compare prescribing high-dose protein (≥2·2 g/kg per day) with usual dose protein (≤1·2 g/kg per day) started within 96 h of ICU admission and continued for up to 28 days or death or transition to oral feeding. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to high-dose protein or usual dose protein, stratified by site. As site personnel were involved in both prescribing and delivering protein dose, it was not possible to blind clinicians, but patients were not made aware of the treatment assignment. The primary efficacy outcome was time-to-discharge-alive from hospital up to 60 days after ICU admission and the secondary outcome was 60-day morality. Patients were analysed in the group to which they were randomly assigned regardless of study compliance, although patients who dropped out of the study before receiving the study intervention were excluded. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03160547. Findings Between Jan 17, 2018, and Dec 3, 2021, 1329 patients were randomised and 1301 (97·9%) were included in the analysis (645 in the high-dose protein group and 656 in usual dose group). By 60 days after randomisation, the cumulative incidence of alive hospital discharge was 46·1% (95 CI 42·0%-50·1%) in the high-dose compared with 50·2% (46·0%-54·3%) in the usual dose protein group (hazard ratio 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07; p=0·27). The 60-day mortality rate was 34·6% (222 of 642) in the high dose protein group compared with 32·1% (208 of 648) in the usual dose protein group (relative risk 1·08, 95% CI 0·92-1·26). There appeared to be a subgroup effect with higher protein provision being particularly harmful in patients with acute kidney injury and higher organ failure scores at baseline. Interpretation Delivery of higher doses of protein to mechanically ventilated critically ill patients did not improve the time-to-discharge-alive from hospital and might have worsened outcomes for patients with acute kidney injury and high organ failure scores. Funding None.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(22)02469-2

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Heyland, D. K., Patel, J., Compher, C., Rice, T. W., Bear, D. E., Lee, Z.-Y., González, V. C., O'Reilly, K., Regala, R., Wedemire, C., Ibarra-Estrada, M., Stoppe, C., Ortiz-Reyes, L., Jiang, X., & Day, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Medical College of Wisconsin (US)
  • Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Malaya (MY)
  • Fundacion Allende (AR)
  • King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Legacy Salmon Creek Medical Center (US)
  • Universidad de Guadalajara (MX)
  • Universitätsklinikum Würzburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Heyland, Daren K
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-02
Volume
401
Issue
10376
Pages
568-576
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W4318022770
Cited by
401
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 118 · 2025: 114 · 2024: 113 · 2023: 56
FWCI
70.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2023-03-25)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Keywords
critically ill patients, intensive care nutrition, protein supplementation, nutritional risk, mechanical ventilation, 60-day mortality, hospital discharge, ICU length of stay, mechanical circulatory support, sepsis, acute kidney injury, acute respiratory failure, acute coronary syndrome, acute stroke, acute heart failure, acute liver failure, acute neurological injury, acute pancreatitis
MeSH terms
Adult, Critical Care, Hospitalization, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Registries, Respiration, Artificial, Critical Illness

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