Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/113411
Citations
Scopus Web of ScienceĀ® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRidley, E.J.en
dc.contributor.authorPeake, S.L.en
dc.contributor.authorJarvis, M.en
dc.contributor.authorDeane, A.M.en
dc.contributor.authorLange, K.en
dc.contributor.authorDavies, A.R.en
dc.contributor.authorChapman, M.en
dc.contributor.authorHeyland, D.en
dc.date.issued2018en
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, 2018; 42(8):1349-1357en
dc.identifier.issn0148-6071en
dc.identifier.issn1941-2444en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/113411-
dc.description.abstractThe 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 [572] vs 948[536] kcal/day; P < .001), possibly because more energy was prescribed (1947 [348] vs 1747 [376] 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.en
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityEmma J. Ridley; Sandra L. Peake; Matthew Jarvis; Adam M. Deane; Kylie Lange; Andrew R. Davies; Marianne Chapman; and Daren Heylanden
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen
dc.rights2018 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutritionen
dc.subjectcritical illness; nutrition practice; nutrition therapyen
dc.titleNutrition therapy in Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Units: An international comparison studyen
dc.typeJournal articleen
dc.identifier.rmid0030086331en
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/jpen.1163en
dc.relation.granthttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/nhmrc/1075288en
dc.identifier.pubid417990-
pubs.library.collectionMedicine publicationsen
pubs.library.teamDS05en
pubs.verification-statusVerifieden
pubs.publication-statusPublisheden
dc.identifier.orcidPeake, S.L. [0000-0001-6682-7973]en
dc.identifier.orcidDeane, A.M. [0000-0002-7620-5577]en
dc.identifier.orcidChapman, M. [0000-0003-0710-3283]en
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.