Association between age and outcomes of evidence-based feeding protocol versus usual care in critically ill patients: secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomised controlled trial.

IF 7.5 2区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Qiuhui Wang, Jin Ke, Yizhe Chen, Hongyang Xu, Dingye Wu, Lu Ke, Fengming Liang, Yang Chen
{"title":"Association between age and outcomes of evidence-based feeding protocol versus usual care in critically ill patients: secondary analysis of a multicenter cluster-randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Qiuhui Wang, Jin Ke, Yizhe Chen, Hongyang Xu, Dingye Wu, Lu Ke, Fengming Liang, Yang Chen","doi":"10.1186/s40560-026-00942-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Nutrition therapy is essential in critically ill patients, yet large randomised trials have shown inconsistent results regarding the effect of an evidence-based feeding protocol. The NEED trial showed a feeding protocol could effectively promote delivery of enteral nutrition (EN) but did not reduce mortality. Age-related physiological differences may modify responses to nutritional therapy. This post hoc analysis of the NEED trial evaluated whether age modifies the association between implementation of an evidence-based feeding protocol and clinical outcomes among critically ill patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This secondary analysis used data from the multicentre cluster-randomised NEED trial conducted across intensive care units (ICUs) in China. Adult patients newly admitted to participating ICUs were assigned to active implementation of a feeding protocol or usual care. Age was analyzed as both a continuous variable and predefined categories (≤65, 66-75, and ≥76 years). The primary effect-modification analysis evaluated the treatment-age interaction for 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome analyses, including organ failure (OF), persistent multiple OF, ICU length of stay, ICU-free days, infection within 7 days, and feeding intolerance, were exploratory. Mixed-effects Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess treatment effects and age-treatment interactions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2672 patients included in the analysis (median age 62 years [IQR 49-74]; 1798 [67.3%] male), the effect of evidence-based feeding protocol on 28-day mortality varied with age. Treatment benefit attenuated progressively with increasing age, with each 10-year increase associated with a higher adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality (1.28; 95% CI 1.13-1.46; continuous interaction P < 0.001). In age-stratified analyses, the intervention reduced mortality in patients aged ≤65 years (adjusted HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.92) but not in those aged 66-75 years (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.64-1.60) or ≥76 years (adjusted HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88; categorical interaction P = 0.010). An exploratory analysis showed a similar age-dependent pattern for persistent multiple OF (interaction P = 0.017). Results were consistent in per-protocol and sensitivity analyses.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this secondary analysis, associations between an evidence-based feeding protocol and clinical outcomes differed across age groups. These exploratory and hypothesis-generating findings suggest potential age-related heterogeneity in treatment response, which requires confirmation in future prospective studies. Research registration unique identifying number (UIN) of the original NEED trial: ISRCTN Registry, Registry number: ISRCTN 12233792, registered on November 24, 2017.</p>","PeriodicalId":16123,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13591688/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-026-00942-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Nutrition therapy is essential in critically ill patients, yet large randomised trials have shown inconsistent results regarding the effect of an evidence-based feeding protocol. The NEED trial showed a feeding protocol could effectively promote delivery of enteral nutrition (EN) but did not reduce mortality. Age-related physiological differences may modify responses to nutritional therapy. This post hoc analysis of the NEED trial evaluated whether age modifies the association between implementation of an evidence-based feeding protocol and clinical outcomes among critically ill patients.

Methods: This secondary analysis used data from the multicentre cluster-randomised NEED trial conducted across intensive care units (ICUs) in China. Adult patients newly admitted to participating ICUs were assigned to active implementation of a feeding protocol or usual care. Age was analyzed as both a continuous variable and predefined categories (≤65, 66-75, and ≥76 years). The primary effect-modification analysis evaluated the treatment-age interaction for 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome analyses, including organ failure (OF), persistent multiple OF, ICU length of stay, ICU-free days, infection within 7 days, and feeding intolerance, were exploratory. Mixed-effects Cox and logistic regression models were used to assess treatment effects and age-treatment interactions.

Results: Among 2672 patients included in the analysis (median age 62 years [IQR 49-74]; 1798 [67.3%] male), the effect of evidence-based feeding protocol on 28-day mortality varied with age. Treatment benefit attenuated progressively with increasing age, with each 10-year increase associated with a higher adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for mortality (1.28; 95% CI 1.13-1.46; continuous interaction P < 0.001). In age-stratified analyses, the intervention reduced mortality in patients aged ≤65 years (adjusted HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.92) but not in those aged 66-75 years (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.64-1.60) or ≥76 years (adjusted HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88; categorical interaction P = 0.010). An exploratory analysis showed a similar age-dependent pattern for persistent multiple OF (interaction P = 0.017). Results were consistent in per-protocol and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusions: In this secondary analysis, associations between an evidence-based feeding protocol and clinical outcomes differed across age groups. These exploratory and hypothesis-generating findings suggest potential age-related heterogeneity in treatment response, which requires confirmation in future prospective studies. Research registration unique identifying number (UIN) of the original NEED trial: ISRCTN Registry, Registry number: ISRCTN 12233792, registered on November 24, 2017.

危重患者年龄与循证喂养方案与常规护理结果之间的关系:多中心集群随机对照试验的二次分析
背景:营养治疗对危重患者至关重要,但大型随机试验显示,循证喂养方案的效果不一致。NEED试验表明,喂养方案可以有效地促进肠内营养(EN)的输送,但不能降低死亡率。年龄相关的生理差异可能会改变对营养治疗的反应。这项对NEED试验的事后分析评估了年龄是否会改变危重患者实施循证喂养方案与临床结果之间的关系。方法:该二次分析使用了来自中国重症监护病房(icu)的多中心集群随机NEED试验的数据。新入住icu的成年患者被分配积极实施喂养方案或常规护理。年龄作为连续变量和预定义类别(≤65岁、66-75岁和≥76岁)进行分析。主要的效应修正分析评估了治疗年龄对28天全因死亡率的相互作用。次要结局分析,包括器官衰竭(OF)、持续性多重OF、ICU住院时间、无ICU天数、7天内感染和喂养不耐受,都是探索性的。混合效应Cox和logistic回归模型用于评估治疗效果和年龄-治疗相互作用。结果:纳入分析的2672例患者(中位年龄62岁[IQR 49-74];男性1798例[67.3%])中,循证喂养方案对28天死亡率的影响随年龄而异。随着年龄的增长,治疗效果逐渐减弱,每增加10年,死亡率的校正危险比(HR)就会增加(1.28;95% CI 1.13-1.46;持续相互作用P < 0.001)。在年龄分层分析中,干预降低了≤65岁患者的死亡率(校正HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.44-0.92),但对66-75岁(校正HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.64-1.60)或≥76岁(校正HR 1.29; 95% CI 0.89-1.88;分类相互作用P = 0.010)的患者没有影响。探索性分析显示,持续多发性OF的年龄依赖性相似(相互作用P = 0.017)。每个方案和敏感性分析的结果一致。结论:在这一次要分析中,循证喂养方案与临床结果之间的关联在不同年龄组之间存在差异。这些探索性和产生假设的发现表明,治疗反应可能存在与年龄相关的异质性,这需要在未来的前瞻性研究中得到证实。原NEED试验的研究注册唯一识别码(UIN): ISRCTN注册中心,注册编号:ISRCTN 12233792,注册于2017年11月24日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
1.40%
发文量
51
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: "Journal of Intensive Care" is an open access journal dedicated to the comprehensive coverage of intensive care medicine, providing a platform for the latest research and clinical insights in this critical field. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including intensive and critical care, trauma and surgical intensive care, pediatric intensive care, acute and emergency medicine, perioperative medicine, resuscitation, infection control, and organ dysfunction. Recognizing the importance of cultural diversity in healthcare practices, "Journal of Intensive Care" also encourages submissions that explore and discuss the cultural aspects of intensive care, aiming to promote a more inclusive and culturally sensitive approach to patient care. By fostering a global exchange of knowledge and expertise, the journal contributes to the continuous improvement of intensive care practices worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书