INTRODUCTION: Sufficient high quality dietary protein intake is required to prevent or treat sarcopenia in elderly people. Therefore, the intake of specific protein sources as well as their timing of intake are important to improve dietary protein intake in elderly people.OBJECTIVES: to assess the consumption of protein sources as well as the distribution of protein sources over the day in community-dwelling, frail and institutionalized elderly people.METHODS: Habitual dietary intake was evaluated using 2- and 3-day food records collected from various studies involving 739 community-dwelling, 321 frail and 219 institutionalized elderly people.RESULTS: Daily protein intake averaged 71 ± 18 g/day in community-dwelling, 71 ± 20 g/day in frail and 58 ± 16 g/day in institutionalized elderly people and accounted for 16% ± 3%, 16% ± 3% and 17% ± 3% of their energy intake, respectively. Dietary protein intake ranged from 10 to 12 g at breakfast, 15 to 23 g at lunch and 24 to 31 g at dinner contributing together over 80% of daily protein intake. The majority of dietary protein consumed originated from animal sources (≥60%) with meat and dairy as dominant sources. Thus, 40% of the protein intake in community-dwelling, 37% in frail and 29% in institutionalized elderly originated from plant based protein sources with bread as the principle source. Plant based proteins contributed for >50% of protein intake at breakfast and between 34% and 37% at lunch, with bread as the main source. During dinner, >70% of the protein intake originated from animal protein, with meat as the dominant source.CONCLUSION: Daily protein intake in these older populations is mainly (>80%) provided by the three main meals, with most protein consumed during dinner. More than 60% of daily protein intake consumed is of animal origin, with plant based protein sources representing nearly 40% of total protein consumed. During dinner, >70% of the protein intake originated from animal protein, while during breakfast and lunch a large proportion of protein is derived from plant based protein sources.
DOCUMENT
Muscle fiber-type specific expression of UCP3-protein is reported here for the firts time, using immunofluorescence microscopy
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sufficient protein intake is of great importance in hemodialysis (HD) patients, especially for maintaining muscle mass. Daily protein needs are generally estimated using bodyweight (BW), in which individual differences in body composition are not accounted for. As body protein mass is best represented by fat free mass (FFM), there is a rationale to apply FFM instead of BW. The agreement between both estimations is unclear. Therefore, the aim of this study is to compare protein needs based on either FFM or BW in HD patients.METHODS: Protein needs were estimated in 115 HD patients by three different equations; FFM, BW and BW adjusted for low or high BMI. FFM was measured by multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance spectroscopy and considered the reference method. Estimations of FFM x 1.5 g/kg and FFM x 1.9 g/kg were compared with (adjusted)BW x 1.2 and x 1.5, respectively. Differences were assessed with repeated measures ANOVA and Bland-Altman plots.RESULTS: Mean protein needs estimated by (adjusted)BW were higher compared to those based on FFM, across all BMI categories (P < 0.01) and most explicitly in obese patients. In females with BMI >30, protein needs were 69 ± 17.4 g/day higher based on BW and 45 ± 9.3 g/day higher based on BMI adjusted BW, compared to FFM. In males with BMI >30, protein needs were 51 ± 20.4 g/day and 23 ± 20.9 g/day higher compared to FFM, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Our data show large differences and possible overestimations of protein needs when comparing BW to FFM. We emphasize the importance of more research and discussion on this topic.
DOCUMENT
The critical care community still has mixed feelings when considering the optimal nutrition of intensive care unit (ICU) patients, which is understandable as randomized controlled trials have not been very helpful in improving clinical practice. There have been no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to contribute to the discussion, especially concerning the role of enterally fed protein in optimal critical care. Recent studies on the route of feeding have shown that enteral nutrition (EN) is not necessarily superior to parenteral nutrition (PN) [1, 2]. There appears to be a strong consensus, with backup from a meta-analysis, on the preferential use of EN over PN [3]. The infection rate was especially used as an argument; however, this is not substantiated in recent trials [1, 2]. We have to consider how applicable this current knowledge is to all ICU patients. Early EN is still the preferred way of feeding [3]. Starting feeding early may improve the outcome of ICU patients. RCTs have all investigated (supplemental parenteral) energy delivery [4]. Only two trials have ‘considered’ protein: the PERMIT trial [5] (protein supplemented, equal level) and EAT-ICU trial [6] (protein supplemented, higher level). Early energy delivery should be applied cautiously since it appears to be related to worse outcome in ICU patients [7, 8, 9]. Therefore, and from the perspective of clinical practice, the Swiss Supplemental PN (SPN) trial appears to provide the most logical design [10]—start with early EN and evaluate on day 3 what the level of energy delivery is; when delivery levels are low (< 60%) start supplementation PN. In clinical practice in our ICU the enteral feeding levels are high enough to avoid PN supplementation, which therefore restricts the specific indication to use PN. The focus of this research has been caloric delivery. There are more than enough observational data to support that higher protein delivery is associated with improved outcome in ICU patients [7, 8, 9]. These observational studies clearly show the benefit of higher protein delivery. However, they are considered relatively weak evidence since illness is considered a confounding factor in the relationship between delivery and outcome for which we cannot completely adjust. Randomized trials have not been conducted, although two trials with randomized high(er) amino acid infusion are available and somewhat contradicting [11, 12]. As with the studies on caloric delivery, the studies on protein have been hampered by insufficient knowledge on energy and protein metabolism under these (patho)physiological circumstances in the ICU patient [7, 8, 9]. Therefore, mechanistic studies on the protein physiology in ICU patients is an essential and current development. The Swedish group of Wernerman and Rooyackers has provided crucial information on the topic. They showed that it was possible to change protein balance during the early phase of admission to the ICU from negative to positive by a short-term (3-h) high-level (1 g/kg/day) amino acid (AA) infusion [13]. This observation was very important to help understand the physiology since it showed that, under these circumstances of critical illness, some basic principles of nutrition still perform well. In the December 2017 issue of Critical Care, Sundstrom et al. showed that the effect of supplemental AA infusion at 3 h is still present at 24 h [14]. Why is this so important to know? We know from extensive studies in sports and the elderly that protein synthesis can be stimulated by bolus protein feeding; however, we know relatively little about the effects of continuous (low dose per time unit) feeding. While the absolute levels of protein balance still have to be considered with caution (e.g., choice of tracer), and we are not completely sure where the protein is going, we now know this positive effect on protein balance is lasting. The next challenge is to reconnect this physiological information with the outcome of ICU patients. We have shown that muscle (protein) mass at admission to the ICU is relevant for the outcome of ICU patients [15]. We do not know if we can change muscle mass and outcome of ICU patients with protein nutrition. The study by Sundstrom et al. [14] is very promising for protein balance, but will that be enough to change outcome? And, if so, is that true for all patients—does one size fit all? The ICU patient group is heterogeneous. Earlier, we found high protein delivery to be associated with lower mortality, except for sepsis patients and patients with early caloric overfeeding [7]. The EAT-ICU trial did not find an effect of early goal-directed feeding on physical component score at 6 months or on mortality [6]. Goal-directed feeding included feeding energy based on indirect calorimetry and protein up to 1.5 g/kg/day from day 1. Feeding calories up to the measured caloric target from day 1 may be equal to caloric overfeeding [7]. The 47% of patients with sepsis in the EAT-ICU trial might also not benefit from the higher protein feeding [7]. Therefore, the effects of protein and energy cannot be assessed individually from this trial. Ferrie et al. showed interesting differences in muscle mass and function between an AA infusion rate of 0.8 and 1.2 g/kg/day [12], but not all patients are equal—one size does not fit all! Those patients with a low protein reserve (low muscle mass) may be at highest risk in the ICU and may benefit more from intervention with early protein nutrition. We have to await further studies, including randomized studies and post-hoc observational studies, to further develop this area of interest. The studies trying to understand the mechanism behind the physiological effect are important as well; we might come nearer to the truth of what works and what does not work in ICU nutrition.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Findings on the association between early high protein provision and mortality in ICU patients are inconsistent. The relation between early high protein provision and mortality in patients receiving CRRT remains unclear. The aim was to study the association between early high protein provision and hospital and ICU mortality and consistency in subgroups.METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in 2618 ICU patients with a feeding tube and mechanically ventilated ≥48 h (2003-2016). The association between early high protein provision (≥1.2 g/kg/day at day 4 vs. <1.2 g/kg/day) and hospital and ICU mortality was assessed for the total group, for patients receiving CRRT, and for non-septic and septic patients, by Cox proportional hazards analysis. Adjustments were made for APACHE II score, energy provision, BMI, and age.RESULTS: Mean protein provision at day 4 was 0.96 ± 0.48 g/kg/day. A significant association between early high protein provision and lower hospital mortality was found in the total group (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.39-0.60, p = <0.001), CRRT-receiving patients (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, p = 0.045) and non-septic patients (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.44-0.71, p = <0.001). However, no association was found in septic patients (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.39-1.29, p = 0.264). These associations were very similar for ICU mortality. In a sensitivity analysis for patients receiving a relative energy provision >50%, results remained robust in all groups except for patients receiving CRRT.CONCLUSIONS: Early high protein provision is associated with lower hospital and ICU mortality in ICU patients, including CRRT-receiving patients. There was no association for septic patients.
DOCUMENT
Background & aims: Optimal nutritional support during the acute phase of critical illness remains controversial. We hypothesized that patients with low skeletal muscle area and -density may specifically benefit from early high protein intake. Aim of the present study was to determine the association between early protein intake (day 2–4) and mortality in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients with normal skeletal muscle area, low skeletal muscle area, or combined low skeletal muscle area and -density. Methods: Retrospective database study in mechanically ventilated, adult critically ill patients with an abdominal CT-scan suitable for skeletal muscle assessment around ICU admission, admitted from January 2004 to January 2016 (n = 739). Patients received protocolized nutrition with protein target 1.2–1.5 g/kg/day. Skeletal muscle area and -density were assessed on abdominal CT-scans at the 3rd lumbar vertebra level using previously defined cut-offs. Results: Of 739 included patients (mean age 58 years, 483 male (65%), APACHE II score 23), 294 (40%) were admitted with normal skeletal muscle area and 445 (60%) with low skeletal muscle area. Two hundred (45% of the low skeletal muscle area group) had combined low skeletal muscle area and -density. In the normal skeletal muscle area group, no significant associations were found. In the low skeletal muscle area group, higher early protein intake was associated with lower 60-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) per 0.1 g/kg/day 0.82, 95%CI 0.73–0.94) and lower 6-month mortality (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.79–0.98). Similar associations were found in the combined low skeletal muscle area and -density subgroup (HR 0.76, 95%CI 0.64–0.90 for 60-day mortality and HR 0.80, 95%CI 0.68–0.93 for 6-month mortality). Conclusions: Early high protein intake is associated with lower mortality in critically ill patients with low skeletal muscle area and -density, but not in patients with normal skeletal muscle area on admission. These findings may be a further step to personalized nutrition, although randomized studies are needed to assess causality.
DOCUMENT
BackgroundICU patients lose muscle mass rapidly and maintenance of muscle mass may contribute to improved survival rates and quality of life. Protein provision may be beneficial for preservation of muscle mass and other clinical outcomes, including survival. Current protein recommendations are expert-based and range from 1.2 to 2.0 g/kg. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on protein provision and all clinically relevant outcomes recorded in the available literature.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses, including studies of all designs except case control and case studies, with patients aged ≥18 years with an ICU stay of ≥2 days and a mean protein provision group of ≥1.2 g/kg as compared to <1.2 g/kg with a difference of ≥0.2 g/kg between protein provision groups. All clinically relevant outcomes were studied. Meta-analyses were performed for all clinically relevant outcomes that were recorded in ≥3 included studies.ResultsA total of 29 studies published between 2012 and 2022 were included. Outcomes reported in the included studies were ICU, hospital, 28-day, 30-day, 42-day, 60-day, 90-day and 6-month mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, vomiting, diarrhea, gastric residual volume, pneumonia, overall infections, nitrogen balance, changes in muscle mass, destination at hospital discharge, physical performance and psychological status. Meta-analyses showed differences between groups in favour of high protein provision for 60-day mortality, nitrogen balance and changes in muscle mass.ConclusionHigh protein provision of more than 1.2 g/kg in critically ill patients seemed to improve nitrogen balance and changes in muscle mass on the short-term and likely 60-day mortality. Data on long-term effects on quality of life are urgently needed.
MULTIFILE
Background & aims: High protein delivery during early critical illness is associated with lower mortality, while energy overfeeding is associated with higher mortality. Protein-to-energy ratios of traditional enteral formulae are sometimes too low to reach protein targets without energy overfeeding. This prospective feasibility study aimed to evaluate the ability of a new enteral formula with a high protein-to-energy ratio to achieve the desired protein target while avoiding energy overfeeding.Methods: Mechanically ventilated non-septic patients received the high protein-to-energy ratio nutrition during the first 4 days of ICU stay (n = 20). Nutritional prescription was 90% of measured energy expenditure. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients reaching a protein target of ≥1.2 g/kg ideal body weight on day 4. Other endpoints included a comparison of nutritional intake to matched historic controls and the response of plasma amino acid concentrations. Safety endpoints were gastro-intestinal tolerance and plasma urea concentrations. Results: Nineteen (95%) patients reached the protein intake target of ≥1.2 g/kg ideal body weight on day 4, compared to 65% in historic controls (p = 0.024). Mean plasma concentrations of all essential amino acids increased significantly from baseline to day 4. Predefined gastro-intestinal tolerance was good, but unexplained foul smelling diarrhoea occurred in two patients. In one patient plasma urea increased unrelated to acute kidney injury. Conclusions: In selected non-septic patients tolerating enteral nutrition, recommended protein targets can be achieved without energy overfeeding using a new high protein-to-energy ratio enteral nutrition.
MULTIFILE
BackgroundCritically ill patients are subject to severe skeletal muscle wasting during intensive care unit (ICU) stay, resulting in impaired short- and long-term functional outcomes and health-related quality of life. Increased protein provision may improve functional outcomes in ICU patients by attenuating skeletal muscle breakdown. Supporting evidence is limited however and results in great variety in recommended protein targets.MethodsThe PRECISe trial is an investigator-initiated, bi-national, multi-center, quadruple-blinded randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design. In 935 patients, we will compare provision of isocaloric enteral nutrition with either a standard or high protein content, providing 1.3 or 2.0 g of protein/kg/day, respectively, when fed on target. All unplanned ICU admissions with initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation within 24 h of admission and an expected stay on ventilator support of at least 3 days are eligible. The study is designed to assess the effect of the intervention on functional recovery at 1, 3, and 6 months following ICU admission, including health-related quality of life, measures of muscle strength, physical function, and mental health. The primary endpoint of the trial is health-related quality of life as measured by the Euro-QoL-5D-5-level questionnaire Health Utility Score. Overall between-group differences will be assessed over the three time points using linear mixed-effects models.DiscussionThe PRECISe trial will evaluate the effect of protein on functional recovery including both patient-centered and muscle-related outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04633421. Registered on November 18, 2020. First patient in (FPI) on November 19, 2020. Expected last patient last visit (LPLV) in October 2023.
MULTIFILE
Abstract: INTRODUCTION: Early protein and energy feeding in critically ill patients is heavily debated and early protein feeding hardly studied.
DOCUMENT
