Clinical Outcomes Related to Protein Delivery in a Critically Ill Population: A Multicenter, Multinational Observation Study
Abstract
Objective: Optimal intake of energy and protein is associated with improved outcomes, although outcomes relative to protein intake are very limited. Our purpose was to evaluate the impact of prescribed protein delivery on mortality and time to discharge alive (TDA) using data from the International Nutrition Survey 2013. We hypothesized that greater protein delivery would be associated with lower mortality and shorter TDA. Methods : The sample included patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) ≥4 days (n = 2828) and a subsample in the ICU ≥12 days (n = 1584). Models were adjusted for evaluable nutrition days, age, body mass index, sex, admission type, acuity scores, and geographic region. Percentages of prescribed protein and energy intake were compared with mortality outcomes using logistic regression and with Cox proportional hazards for TDA. Results : Mean intake for the 4‐day sample was protein 51 g (60.5% of prescribed) and 1100 kcal (64.1% of prescribed); for the 12‐day sample, mean intake was protein 57 g (66.7% of prescribed) and 1200 kcal (70.7% of prescribed). Achieving ≥80% of prescribed protein intake was associated with reduced mortality (4‐day sample: odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.91; 12‐day sample: OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39–0.93), but ≥80% of prescribed energy intake was not. TDA was shorter with ≥80% prescribed protein (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.04–1.49) in the 12‐day sample but longer with ≥80% prescribed energy in the 4‐day sample (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69–0.96). Conclusion : Achieving at least 80% of prescribed protein intake may be important to survival and shorter TDA in ICU patients. Efforts to achieve prescribed protein intake should be maximized.
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?
Allingstrup et al. showed a step-wise dose-dependent improvement in survival when protein delivery was higher.
“Allingstrup et al. (163) showed a step-wise dose-dependent improvement in survival when protein delivery was higher.”
From ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. (2019) · cites this paper as [163]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 294
- Authors
- Nicolo, M., Heyland, D. K., Chittams, J., Sammarco, T., & Compher, C.
- Affiliations
- Kingston General Hospital (CA)
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-21
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-51
- ISSN
- 0148-6071 (ISSN-L)
- 1941-2444
- OpenAlex
- W2079142377
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 29.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Rhoads Research Foundation
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Abbott Fund
- Baxter International
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Clinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Sepsis Diagnosis and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Hyperglycemia and glycemic control in critically ill and hospitalized patients
- Keywords
- protein intake, energy intake, critically ill patients, intensive care unit, mortality, discharge time, nutritional prescription, enteral nutrition, nutritional outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Energy Intake, Dietary Proteins, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Nutritional Status, Patient Discharge, Retrospective Studies, Body Mass Index, Logistic Models, Critical Illness, Treatment Outcome, Nutritional Support
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