Heuts Samuel, Lee Zheng-Yii, Lew Charles Chin Han, Bels Julia L M, Gabrio Andrea, Kawczynski Michal J, Heyland Daren K, Summers Matthew J, Deane Adam M, Mesotten Dieter, Chapple Lee-Anne S, Stoppe Christian, van de Poll Marcel C G
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Crit Care Med. 2025 Mar 1;53(3):e645-e655. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000006562. Epub 2024 Dec 27.
Recent multicenter trials suggest that higher protein delivery may result in worse outcomes in critically ill patients, but uncertainty remains. An updated Bayesian meta-analysis of recent evidence was conducted to estimate the probabilities of beneficial and harmful treatment effects.
An updated systematic search was performed in three databases until September 4, 2024. The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and the protocol was preregistered in PROSPERO (CRD42024546387).
Randomized controlled trials that studied adult critically ill patients comparing protein doses delivered enterally and/or parenterally with similar energy delivery between groups were included.
Data extraction was performed by two authors independently, using a predefined worksheet. The primary outcome was mortality. Posterior probabilities of any benefit (relative risk [RR] < 1.00) or harm (RR > 1.00) and other important beneficial and harmful effect size thresholds were estimated. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the risk of bias 2.0 tool. All analyses were performed using a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects models, under vague priors.
Twenty-two randomized trials ( n = 4164 patients) were included. The mean protein delivery in the higher and lower protein groups was 1.5 ± 0.6 vs. 0.9 ± 0.4 g/kg/d. The median RR for mortality was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.84-1.16). The posterior probability of any mortality benefit from higher protein delivery was 43.6%, while the probability of any harm was 56.4%. The probabilities of a 1% (RR < 0.99) and 5% (RR < 0.95) mortality reduction by higher protein delivery were 38.7% and 22.9%, respectively. Conversely, the probabilities of a 1% (RR > 1.01) and 5% (RR > 1.05) mortality increase were 51.5% and 32.4%, respectively.
There is a considerable probability of an increased mortality risk with higher protein delivery in critically ill patients, although a clinically beneficial effect cannot be completely eliminated based on the current data.
近期的多中心试验表明,在重症患者中给予更高剂量的蛋白质可能会导致更差的预后,但仍存在不确定性。我们对近期证据进行了更新的贝叶斯荟萃分析,以估计有益和有害治疗效果的概率。
在三个数据库中进行了更新的系统检索,直至2024年9月4日。该研究遵循《系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目2020》指南,方案已在PROSPERO(CRD42024546387)中预先注册。
纳入了研究成年重症患者的随机对照试验,这些试验比较了肠内和/或肠外给予的蛋白质剂量,且各组间能量供应相似。
由两名作者独立使用预定义的工作表进行数据提取。主要结局是死亡率。估计了任何益处(相对风险[RR]<1.00)或危害(RR>1.00)以及其他重要有益和有害效应大小阈值的后验概率。使用偏倚风险2.0工具进行偏倚风险评估。所有分析均使用贝叶斯分层随机效应模型,在先验模糊的情况下进行。
纳入了22项随机试验(n = 4164例患者)。高蛋白组和低蛋白组的平均蛋白质摄入量分别为1.5±0.6 vs. 0.9±0.4 g/kg/d。死亡率的中位数RR为1.01(95%可信区间,0.84 - 1.16)。高蛋白摄入对死亡率有任何益处的后验概率为43.6%,而有任何危害的概率为56.4%。高蛋白摄入使死亡率降低1%(RR<0.99)和5%(RR<0.95)的概率分别为38.7%和22.9%。相反,死亡率增加1%(RR>1.01)和5%(RR>1.05)的概率分别为51.5%和32.4%。
在重症患者中,高蛋白摄入有相当大的概率增加死亡风险,尽管根据目前的数据不能完全排除临床有益效果。