MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7037436110

Early versus late parenteral nutrition in critically ill, term neonates: a preplanned secondary subgroup analysis of the PEPaNIC multicentre, randomised controlled trial

2018· article· en· W7037436110 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueEUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueSpider Taxonomy and Behavior Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésParenteral nutritionRandomized controlled trialIncidence (geometry)Subgroup analysisCritically illEnteral administrationClinical trialIntensive care
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

__Background:__ Previous randomised studies showed that withholding parenteral nutrition for 1 week of critical illness was superior to early initiation (<24–48 h) of parenteral nutrition in children and adults. However, neonates are considered more susceptible to macronutrient deficits. We investigated the effect of withholding parenteral nutrition for 1 week in critically ill, term neonates. __Methods:__ We previously did a randomised, controlled study (PEPaNIC) of children aged up to 17 years admitted to paediatric intensive-care units (ICUs) in three hospitals in Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands randomly assigned (1:1) to either standard care of parenteral nutrition initiated early within 24 h of admission to an ICU or late parenteral nutrition (where supplemental parenteral nutrition was withheld for 1 week after admission to the ICU). In this preplanned, secondary subanalysis of PEPaNIC, we looked at data from critically ill, term neonate participants (gestational age ≥37 weeks) aged up to 28 days (studied in overlapping age groups of ≤4 weeks, ≤1 week, and <1 day—ie, age at admission). In both the early parenteral nutrition and late parenteral nutrition groups, enteral nutrition was initiated as soon as possible and increased according to local protocols. Outcome assessors and investigators not directly involved in the paediatric ICU were not informed of treatment allocation. The primary endpoints were incidence of new infections and duration of paediatric ICU dependency (quantified as the number of days in the paediatric ICU and likelihood of earlier live discharge from the ICU), analysed based on intention to treat. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for the following risk factors: centre, Paediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction score, Paediatric Index of Mortality 2 score, diagnosis group, and weight-for-age Z scores on admission. Secondary safety outcomes were mortality (at 90 days, during the intervention, in the paediatric ICU, and in the hospital) and hypoglycaemic incidents during the intervention. All patients in the respective groups were included in the safety analysis. __Findings:__ Between June 18, 2012, and July 27, 2015, we included 209 participants in this substudy, 145 of whom were aged up to and including 1 week and 45 aged younger than 1 day. In neonates aged up to and including 4 weeks, late parenteral nutrition increased the likelihood of earlier live discharge from the paediatric ICU compared with early parenteral nutrition (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·61, 95% CI 1·19–2·20; p=0·0021) but did not affect the risk of infection. The risk of infection in neonates aged up to and including 1 week and younger than 1 day was lower with late parenteral nutrition than with early parenteral nutrition (adjusted odds ratios [OR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·15–0·83, p=0·017; and 0·10, 0·01–0·64, p=0·015, respectively). For neonates aged up to and including 1 week, the likelihood of an earlier live discharge from the ICU was higher with late parenteral nutrition (adjusted HR 1·69, 95% CI 1·16–2·46; p=0·0063). For neonates younger than 1 day, adjusted HR was 1·95 (95% CI 0·93–4·12; p=0·078). Mortality at all studied timepoints was similar between the groups for all ages; however, in neonates aged up to and including 4 weeks and aged up to and including 1 week, the risk of hypoglycaemia was higher with late parenteral nutrition (23% vs 14%; adjusted OR 3·05, 95% CI 1·27–7·35, p=0·013; and 24% vs 14%; 3·57, 1·23–10·45, p=0·019, respectively. __Interpretation:__ In critically ill, term neonates, withholding parenteral nutrition for 1 week was clinically superior to standard care of initiating parenteral nutrition within 24 h for short-term outcomes. However, withholding parenteral nutrition for 1 week significantly increased the risk of developing hypoglycaemia, which necessitates long-term follow-up of these children before late parenteral nutrition can be confidently recommended for this vulnerable patient group. __Funding:__ Flemish Agency for Innovation through Science and Technology, Methusalem-Programme Flemish Government, European Research Council, Fonds NutsOhra, Stichting Agis-Zorginnovatie, and the Sophia Research-Foundation.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,010
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,054

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0100,010
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,297
Écart entre enseignants0,269 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam)Même sujetSpider Taxonomy and Behavior StudiesTravaux en français237 207