Achieving protein targets without energy overfeeding in critically ill patients: A prospective feasibility study

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

Predicting outcome in older patients with cancer: Comprehensive geriatric assessment and clinical judgment

Objectives: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) has been incorporated into geriatric oncology to prevent unfavorable outcome from anticancer treatment. This study determined the value of CGA and medical oncologist's clinical judgment in predicting unfavorable outcome and explored whether treatment decisions can be based on CGA. Patients and Methods: In this prospective cohort study, a multidomain CGA was performed by a geriatric nurse and geriatrician in 110 consecutive patients aged ≥70 years, newly referred to a multidisciplinary oncology clinic. CGA domains included comorbidity, polypharmacy, mood, cognition, nutrition, functionality and physical performance. Medical oncologist's clinical judgment on expected tolerance of standard treatment was noted (N = 62). Unfavorable outcome was defined as any ≥grade three chemotherapy toxicity, dose reduction, postponement of treatment, death before start of treatment and early progression before first evaluation of treatment (N = 80). Results: CGA identified multidomain problems in 77 out of 110 patients (70.0%) and the medical oncologist had doubts about standard treatment tolerance in 30 out of 62 patients (48.4%). Unfavorable outcome occurred in 48 out of 80 patients (60%) who received anticancer treatment but could not be predicted by CGA, medical oncologists' clinical judgment or their combination. There was discrepancy between CGA and clinical judgment in 24 out of 62 patients (38.7%). Conclusion: Neither CGA, medical oncologist's clinical judgment or a combination could predict unfavorable outcome in our heterogeneous sample. CGA and clinical judgment did not align in more than one-third of patients