Continuous Versus Intermittent Nutrition in Pediatric Intensive Care Patients: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Intermittent fasting is a time-restricted feeding strategy with proven health benefits, which is based on multiple metabolic and endocrine changes, in several patient populations and healthy participants. In the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), artificial feeding is usually administered 24 hours a day, although solid evidence supporting this practice is lacking. This discards the potential benefits of fasting in this population. We hypothesize that intermittent nutrition with a focus on an overnight feeding interruption (intermittent fasting), as compared with 24-hour continuous nutrition, is a feasible and safe strategy, with potential benefits, for critically ill children. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Continuous versus Intermittent Nutrition in Pediatric Intensive Care randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to investigate a strategy of intermittent nutrition with a focus on an overnight feeding interruption period versus 24-hour nutrition during the first 14 days in the PICU. METHODS: The Continuous versus Intermittent Nutrition in Pediatric Intensive Care study is an investigator-initiated RCT in a tertiary referral PICU. Critically ill children (term newborn to 18 years), expected to stay in the PICU for ≥48 hours, and dependent on artificial nutrition, are eligible for inclusion. This study will randomize critically ill children (n=140) to a continuous versus intermittent nutrition strategy. In both groups, similar daily caloric targets will be prescribed. In the continuous group (control), nutrition will be administered 24 hours a day, with a maximum interruption period of 2 hours. In the intermittent group (intervention), nutrition will be interrupted during an age-dependent overnight fasting period. The study intervention will last until admission day 14, initiation of oral intake, or discharge from the PICU, whichever comes first. The primary outcome is the difference in ketosis between the groups under the condition of noninferiority regarding caloric intake. Secondary outcomes are feeding intolerance; the proportion of severe and resistant hypoglycemic events and severe gastrointestinal complications; and additional observed effects on nutritional intake, circadian rhythm, and clinically relevant outcome measures of the intermittent feeding strategy compared with continuous nutrition. RESULTS: The study was approved by the Dutch national ethical review board in February 2020. The first patient was enrolled on May 19, 2020. By May 2022, a total of 132 patients had been included in the study. Recruitment of the last patient is expected in Q3 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Although intermittent fasting has been proven to have many health benefits in both animal and human studies, the feasibility and safety of this strategy in a PICU setting must be investigated. This RCT will help physicians gain more insight into the feasibility, safety, and potential clinical effects of intermittent feeding with overnight fasting in critically ill children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NL7877; https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL7877. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36229.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,037 | 0,044 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,015 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,084 | 0,011 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».