Cited by 154Clinical Nutrition and GastroenterologySepsis Diagnosis and TreatmentEnhanced Recovery After Surgery

Permissive Underfeeding or Standard Enteral Feeding in High– and Low–Nutritional-Risk Critically Ill Adults. Post Hoc Analysis of the PermiT Trial

Arabi, Yaseen M., Aldawood, Abdulaziz S., Al-Dorzi, Hasan M., Tamim, Hani M., Haddad, Samir H., Jones, Gwynne, McIntyre, Lauralyn, Solaiman, Othman +6 more·2017·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: The optimal nutritional strategy for critically ill adults at high nutritional risk is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of permissive underfeeding with full protein intake compared with standard feeding on 90-day mortality in patients with different baseline nutritional risk. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the PermiT (Permissive Underfeeding versus Target Enteral Feeding in Adult Critically Ill Patients) trial. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Nutritional risk was categorized by the modified Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, with high nutritional risk defined as a score of 5-9 and low nutritional risk as a score of 0-4. Additional analyses were performed by categorizing patients by body mass index, prealbumin, transferrin, phosphate, urinary urea nitrogen, and nitrogen balance. Based on the Nutrition Risk in Critically Ill score, 378 of 894 (42.3%) patients were categorized as high nutritional risk and 516 of 894 (57.7%) as low nutritional risk. There was no association between feeding strategy and mortality in the two categories; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.27) for high nutritional risk and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.64-1.61) for low nutritional risk (interaction P = 0.53). Findings were similar in analyses using other definitions, with the exception of prealbumin. The association of permissive underfeeding versus standard feeding and 90-day mortality differed when patients were categorized by baseline prealbumin level (≤0.10 g/L: aOR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31-1.05]; >0.10 and ≤0.15 g/L: aOR, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.42-1.48]; >0.15 g/L: aOR, 1.55 [95% CI, 0.80, 3.01]; interaction P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high and low nutritional risk, permissive underfeeding with full protein intake was associated with similar outcomes as standard feeding.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.201605-1012oc

Cites

25 of 25 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?

  • A limitation to the NUTRIC score is that no nutritional parameters are included.

    “A limitation to this score is that no nutritional parameters are included.”
  • The final composite NUTRIC score was correlated with mortality.

    “The final composite NUTRIC score was correlated with mortality and the expected advantage of the score was to be able to show interaction between the score and nutritional intervention regarding outcome, hypothesizing that nutritional support might decrease mortality in patients with a high NUTRIC score (>5).”
  • When the NUTRIC score was compared to traditional screening tools, a large variability was observed.

    “When the score was compared to traditional screening tools, a large variability was observed.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Arabi, Y. M., Aldawood, A. S., Al-Dorzi, H. M., Tamim, H. M., Haddad, S. H., Jones, G., McIntyre, L., Solaiman, O., Sakkijha, M. H., Sadat, M., Mundekkadan, S., Kumar, A., Bagshaw, S. M., & Mehta, S.
Affiliations
  • King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences (SA)
  • King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences and King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre (SA)
  • Health Sciences Centre (CA)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Arabi, Yaseen M.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2017-03-01
Volume
195
Issue
5
Pages
652-662
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2517641494
Cited by
153
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 15
FWCI
20.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canada Research Chairs
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
Keywords
permissive underfeeding, enteral nutrition, critically ill adults, nutritional risk, 90-day mortality, prealbumin, protein intake, nitrogen balance
MeSH terms
Adult, Energy Intake, Canada, Critical Care, Enteral Nutrition, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Nutritional Status, Risk, Saudi Arabia, Odds Ratio, Critical Illness, Hospital Mortality, Caloric Restriction

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