The impact of higher protein dosing on outcomes in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a post hoc analysis of the EFFORT protein trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Based on low-quality evidence, current nutrition guidelines recommend the delivery of high-dose protein in critically ill patients. The EFFORT Protein trial showed that higher protein dose is not associated with improved outcomes, whereas the effects in critically ill patients who developed acute kidney injury (AKI) need further evaluation. The overall aim is to evaluate the effects of high-dose protein in critically ill patients who developed different stages of AKI. Methods In this post hoc analysis of the EFFORT Protein trial, we investigated the effect of high versus usual protein dose (≥ 2.2 vs. ≤ 1.2 g/kg body weight/day) on time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) and 60-day mortality and in different subgroups in critically ill patients with AKI as defined by the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria within 7 days of ICU admission. The associations of protein dose with incidence and duration of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) were also investigated. Results Of the 1329 randomized patients, 312 developed AKI and were included in this analysis (163 in the high and 149 in the usual protein dose group). High protein was associated with a slower time-to-discharge alive from the hospital (TTDA) (hazard ratio 0.5, 95% CI 0.4–0.8) and higher 60-day mortality (relative risk 1.4 (95% CI 1.1–1.8). Effect modification was not statistically significant for any subgroup, and no subgroups suggested a beneficial effect of higher protein, although the harmful effect of higher protein target appeared to disappear in patients who received kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Protein dose was not significantly associated with the incidence of AKI and KRT or duration of KRT. Conclusions In critically ill patients with AKI, high protein may be associated with worse outcomes in all AKI stages. Recommendation of higher protein dosing in AKI patients should be carefully re-evaluated to avoid potential harmful effects especially in patients who were not treated with KRT. Trial registration: This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03160547) on May 17th 2017.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".