Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Scopus||Web of Science®||Altmetric|
|Title:||Nutrition therapy in Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Units: An international comparison study|
|Citation:||Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2018; 42(8):1349-1357|
|Emma J. Ridley; Sandra L. Peake; Matthew Jarvis; Adam M. Deane; Kylie Lange; Andrew R. Davies; Marianne Chapman; and Daren Heyland|
|Abstract:||The Augmented Versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) is the largest blinded enteral nutrition (EN) intervention trial evaluating energy delivery to be conducted in the critically ill. To determine the external validity of TARGET results, nutrition practices in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) are described and compared with international practices.This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data for the International Nutrition Surveys, 2007-2013. Data are presented as mean (SD).A total of 17,154 patients (ANZ: n = 2776 vs international n = 14,378) from 923 ICUs (146 and 777, respectively) were included. EN was the most common route of feeding (ANZ: 85%, n = 2365 patients vs international: 84%, n = 12,034; P = .258), and EN concentration was also similar (<1.25 kcal/mL ANZ: 70%, n = 12,396 vs international: 65%, n = 56,891 administrations; P < .001). Protein delivery was substantially below the estimated prescriptions but similar between the regions (0.6 [0.4] g/kg/day vs 0.6 [0.4] g/kg/day; P = .849). Patients in ANZ received slightly more energy (1133  vs 948 kcal/day; P < .001), possibly because more energy was prescribed (1947  vs 1747  kcal/day; P < .001), nutrition protocols were more commonly used (98% vs 75%; P < .001) and included recommendations for therapies such as prokinetic agents (87% vs 51%, n = 399; P < .001) and small bowel feeding (62% vs 40%; P < .001) when compared with international ICUs.Key elements of nutrition practice are similar in ANZ and international ICUs. These data can be used to determine the external validity and relevance of TARGET results.|
|Keywords:||critical illness; nutrition practice; nutrition therapy|
|Rights:||2018 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition|
|Appears in Collections:||Medicine publications|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.