Nutrition practices in Australia and New Zealand in response to evolving evidence: Results of three point-prevalence audits

Background

The Augmented versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) was a 4000-patient trial in which augmented enteral calorie dose did not influence outcomes.

Aim

We aimed to quantify practice change following TARGET.

Methods

Three single-day, prospective, multicentre, point-prevalence audits of adult patients receiving enteral nutrition (EN) in participating Australian and New Zealand intensive care units at 10:00 AM were conducted: (i) 2010 (before conducting TARGET); (ii) 2018 (immediately before publishing TARGET results); and (iii) 2020 (2 years after TARGET publication). Data included baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and nutrition data. Data are n (%), mean ± standard deviation, or median [interquartile range]. Differences in enteral calorie prescription between 2018 and 2020 were compared using the Mann–Whitney test.

Results

The percentage of patients receiving EN (2010 42%, 2018 38%, 2020 33%; P = 0.012) and the prescription of calorie-dense EN formula (≥1.5 kcal/ml) (2010 33%, 2018 24%, 2020 23%; P = 0.038) decreased over time. However, when comparing prepublication and postpublication (2018–2020), calorie dose and calorie density were similar: 22.9 ± 8.6 versus 23.4 ± 12.8 kcal/kg/day (P = 0.816) and <1.5 kcal/ml: 76 versus 77% (P = 0.650), respectively.

Conclusion

In Australian and New Zealand intensive care units, enteral calorie dose and calorie density of prescribed EN were similar before TARGET publication and 2 years later.