Many intensive care unit (ICU) patients do not achieve target protein intakes particularly in the early days following admittance. This period of iatrogenic protein undernutrition contributes to a rapid loss of lean, in particular muscle, mass in the ICU. The loss of muscle in older (aged >60 years) patients in the ICU may be particularly rapid due to a perfect storm of increased catabolic factors, including systemic inflammation, disuse, protein malnutrition, and reduced anabolic stimuli. This loss of muscle mass has marked consequences. It is likely that the older patient is already experiencing muscle loss due to sarcopenia; however, the period of stay in the ICU represents a greatly accelerated period of muscle loss. Thus, on discharge, the older ICU patient is now on a steeper downward trajectory of muscle loss, more likely to have ICU-acquired muscle weakness, and at risk of becoming sarcopenic and/or frail. One practice that has been shown to have benefit during ICU stays is early ambulation and physical therapy (PT), and it is likely that both are potent stimuli to induce a sensitivity of protein anabolism. Thus, recommendations for the older ICU patient would be provision of at least 1.2-1.5 g protein/kg usual body weight/d, regular and early utilization of ambulation (if possible) and/or PT, and follow-up rehabilitation for the older discharged ICU patient that includes rehabilitation, physical activity, and higher habitual dietary protein to change the trajectory of ICU-mediated muscle mass loss and weakness.
DOCUMENT
Background & aims: In dietary practice, it is common to estimate protein requirements on actual bodyweight, but corrected bodyweight (in cases with BMI <20 kg/m2 and BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and fat free mass (FFM) are also used. Large differences on individual level are noticed in protein requirements using these different approaches. To continue this discussion, the answer is sought in a large population to the following question: Will choosing actual bodyweight, corrected bodyweight or FFM to calculate protein requirements result in clinically relevant differences? Methods: This retrospective database study, used data from healthy persons ≥55 years of age and in- and outpatients ≥18 years of age. FFM was measured by air displacement plethysmography technology or bioelectrical impedance analysis. Protein requirements were calculated as 1) 1.2 g (g) per kilogram (kg) actual bodyweight or 2) corrected bodyweight or 3) 1.5 g per kg FFM. To compare these three approaches, the approach in which protein requirement is based on FFM, was used as reference method. Bland–Altman plots with limits of agreement were used to determine differences, analyses were performed for both populations separately and stratified by BMI category and gender. Results: In total 2291 subjects were included. In the population with relatively healthy persons (n = 506, ≥55 years of age) mean weight is 86.5 ± 18.2 kg, FFM is 51 ± 12 kg and in the population with adult in- and outpatients (n = 1785, ≥18 years of age) mean weight is 72.5 ± 18.4 kg, FFM is 51 ± 11 kg. Clinically relevant differences were found in protein requirement between actual bodyweight and FFM in most of the participants with overweight, obesity or severe obesity (78–100%). Using corrected bodyweight, an overestimation in 48–92% of the participants with underweight, healthy weight and overweight is found. Only in the Amsterdam UMC population, protein requirement is underestimated when using the approach of corrected bodyweight in participants with severe obesity. Conclusion: The three approaches in estimation of protein requirement show large differences. In the majority of the population protein requirement based on FFM is lower compared to actual or corrected bodyweight. Correction of bodyweight reduces the differences, but remain unacceptably large. It is yet unknown which method is the best for estimation of protein requirement. Since differences vary by gender due to differences in body composition, it seems more accurate to estimate protein requirement based on FFM. Therefore, we would like to advocate for more frequent measurement of FFM to determine protein requirements, especially when a deviating body composition is to be expected, for instance in elderly and persons with overweight, obesity or severe obesity.
DOCUMENT
ObjectivesTo investigate cartilage tissue turnover in response to a supervised 12-week exercise-related joint loading training program followed by a 6-month period of unsupervised training in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). To study the difference in cartilage tissue turnover between high- and low-resistance training.MethodPatients with knee OA were randomized into either high-intensity or low-intensity resistance supervised training (two sessions per week) for 3 months and unsupervised training for 6 months. Blood samples were collected before and after the supervised training period and after the follow-up period. Biomarkers huARGS, C2M, and PRO-C2, quantifying cartilage tissue turnover, were measured by ELISA. Changes in biomarker levels over time within and between groups were analyzed using linear mixed models with baseline values as covariates.ResultshuARGS and C2M levels increased after training and at follow-up in both low- and high-intensity exercise groups. No changes were found in PRO-C2. The huARGS level in the high-intensity resistance training group increased significantly compared to the low-intensity resistance training group after resistance training (p = 0.029) and at follow-up (p = 0.003).ConclusionCartilage tissue turnover and cartilage degradation appear to increase in response to a 3-month exercise-related joint loading training program and at 6-month follow-up, with no evident difference in type II collagen formation. Aggrecan remodeling increased more with high-intensity resistance training than with low-intensity exercise.These exploratory biomarker results, indicating more cartilage degeneration in the high-intensity group, in combination with no clinical outcome differences of the VIDEX study, may argue against high-intensity training.
DOCUMENT
