MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105261930 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-507

Impact of early enteral versus parenteral nutrition on mortality in patients requiring mechanical ventilation and catecholamines: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (NUTRIREA-2)

2014· article· en· W2105261930 on OpenAlexaff
Laurent Brisard, Amélie Le Gouge, Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou, Hervé Dupont, Pierre Asfar, Michel Sirodot, Gaël Piton, Hoang-Nam Bui, Olivier Gontier, Ali Ait Hssain, Stèphane Gaudry, Jean‐Philippe Rigaud, Jean‐Pierre Quenot, Virginie Maxime, Carole Schwebel, Didier Thévenin, Saad Nseir, Erika Parmentier-Decrucq, Ahmed El Kalioubie, M. Jourdain, Véronique Leray, Nathalie Rolin, Frédéric Bellec, Vincent Das, Frédérique Ganster, Christophe Guitton, Karim Asehnoune, Anne Bretagnol, Nadia Anguel, Jean‐Paul Mira, Emmanuel Canet, Bertrand Guidet, Michel Djibré, Benoît Misset, R. Robert, Frédéric Martino, Philippe Letocart, Daniel Silva, Michaël Darmon, Vlad Botoc, Jean-Étienne Herbrecht, Ferhat Meziani, Jérôme Devaquet, Emmanuelle Mercier, Jack Richecoeur, Stéphanie Martin, Emilie Gréau, Bruno Giraudeau, Jean Reignier

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
FundersUniversité de NantesSociété de Réanimation de Langue Française
KeywordsMedicineParenteral nutritionMechanical ventilationRandomized controlled trialSeptic shockEnteral administrationShock (circulatory)VasoactiveRandomizationClinical trialAnesthesiaIntensive care medicineInternal medicineSepsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nutritional support is crucial to the management of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and the most commonly prescribed treatment in intensive care units (ICUs). International guidelines consistently indicate that enteral nutrition (EN) should be preferred over parenteral nutrition (PN) whenever possible and started as early as possible. However, no adequately designed study has evaluated whether a specific nutritional modality is associated with decreased mortality. The primary goal of this trial is to assess the hypothesis that early first-line EN, as compared to early first-line PN, decreases day 28 all-cause mortality in patients receiving IMV and vasoactive drugs for shock. METHODS/DESIGN: The NUTRIREA-2 study is a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial comparing early PN versus early EN in critically ill patients requiring IMV for an expected duration of at least 48 hours, combined with vasoactive drugs, for shock. Patients will be allocated at random to first-line PN for at least 72 hours or to first-line EN. In both groups, nutritional support will be started within 24 hours after IMV initiation. Calorie targets will be 20 to 25 kcal/kg/day during the first week, then 25 to 30 kcal/kg/day thereafter. Patients receiving PN may be switched to EN after at least 72 hours in the event of shock resolution (no vasoactive drugs for 24 consecutive hours and arterial lactic acid level below 2 mmol/L). On day 7, all patients receiving PN and having no contraindications to EN will be switched to EN. In both groups, supplemental PN may be added to EN after day 7 in patients with persistent intolerance to EN and inadequate calorie intake. We plan to recruit 2,854 patients at 44 participating ICUs. DISCUSSION: The NUTRIREA-2 study is the first large randomized controlled trial designed to assess the hypothesis that early EN improves survival compared to early PN in ICU patients. Enrollment started on 22 March 2013 and is expected to end in November 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802099 (registered 27 February 2013).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.341 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicClinical Nutrition and GastroenterologyFrench-language works237,207