重症患者摄入高蛋白的效果:EFFORT 蛋白质试验的探索性二次贝叶斯分析。

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.033
Ryan W Haines, Anders Granholm, Zudin Puthucheary, Andrew G Day, Danielle E Bear, John R Prowle, Daren K Heyland
{"title":"重症患者摄入高蛋白的效果:EFFORT 蛋白质试验的探索性二次贝叶斯分析。","authors":"Ryan W Haines, Anders Granholm, Zudin Puthucheary, Andrew G Day, Danielle E Bear, John R Prowle, Daren K Heyland","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The EFFORT Protein trial assessed the effect of high vs usual dosing of protein in adult ICU patients with organ failure. This study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed 60-day all-cause mortality and time to discharge alive from hospital using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to disease severity (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score), acute kidney injury, and serum creatinine values at baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The absolute difference in mortality was 2.5% points (95% credible interval -6.9 to 12.4), with a 72% posterior probability of harm associated with high protein treatment. For time to discharge alive from hospital, the hazard ratio was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.80 to 1.04) with a 92% probability of harm for the high-dose protein group compared with the usual-dose protein group. There were 97% and 95% probabilities of positive interactions between the high protein intervention and serum creatinine and SOFA score at randomisation, respectively. Specifically, there was a potentially relatively higher mortality of high protein doses with higher baseline serum creatinine or SOFA scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found moderate to high probabilities of harm with high protein doses compared with usual protein in ICU patients for the primary and secondary outcomes. We found suggestions of heterogeneity in treatment effects with worse outcomes in participants randomised to high protein doses with renal dysfunction or acute kidney injury and greater illness severity at baseline.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of high protein dosing in critically ill patients: an exploratory, secondary Bayesian analyses of the EFFORT Protein trial.\",\"authors\":\"Ryan W Haines, Anders Granholm, Zudin Puthucheary, Andrew G Day, Danielle E Bear, John R Prowle, Daren K Heyland\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The EFFORT Protein trial assessed the effect of high vs usual dosing of protein in adult ICU patients with organ failure. This study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed 60-day all-cause mortality and time to discharge alive from hospital using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to disease severity (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score), acute kidney injury, and serum creatinine values at baseline.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The absolute difference in mortality was 2.5% points (95% credible interval -6.9 to 12.4), with a 72% posterior probability of harm associated with high protein treatment. For time to discharge alive from hospital, the hazard ratio was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.80 to 1.04) with a 92% probability of harm for the high-dose protein group compared with the usual-dose protein group. There were 97% and 95% probabilities of positive interactions between the high protein intervention and serum creatinine and SOFA score at randomisation, respectively. Specifically, there was a potentially relatively higher mortality of high protein doses with higher baseline serum creatinine or SOFA scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found moderate to high probabilities of harm with high protein doses compared with usual protein in ICU patients for the primary and secondary outcomes. We found suggestions of heterogeneity in treatment effects with worse outcomes in participants randomised to high protein doses with renal dysfunction or acute kidney injury and greater illness severity at baseline.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.033\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.08.033","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:EFFORT 蛋白质试验评估了成人 ICU 器官衰竭患者服用高剂量与普通剂量蛋白质的效果。本研究提供了概率解释,并评估了治疗效果的异质性(HTE):方法:我们使用具有弱信息先验的贝叶斯模型分析了 60 天的全因死亡率和出院存活时间。根据疾病严重程度(序贯器官功能衰竭评估[SOFA]评分)、急性肾损伤和基线血清肌酐值评估死亡率的HTE:死亡率的绝对差异为2.5%点(95%可信区间为-6.9至12.4),高蛋白治疗造成伤害的后验概率为72%。就出院后存活时间而言,高剂量蛋白质组与普通剂量蛋白质组相比,危险比为0.91(95%可信区间为0.80至1.04),危害概率为92%。高蛋白干预与随机化时的血清肌酐和SOFA评分之间的正交互作用概率分别为97%和95%。具体而言,基线血清肌酐或SOFA评分越高,高蛋白剂量的死亡率可能相对越高:我们发现,就主要和次要结果而言,与普通蛋白质相比,高剂量蛋白质对重症监护室患者造成伤害的概率为中等至高等。我们发现治疗效果存在异质性,在随机接受高蛋白剂量治疗的患者中,肾功能不全或急性肾损伤以及基线疾病严重程度较高的患者预后较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effect of high protein dosing in critically ill patients: an exploratory, secondary Bayesian analyses of the EFFORT Protein trial.

Background: The EFFORT Protein trial assessed the effect of high vs usual dosing of protein in adult ICU patients with organ failure. This study provides a probabilistic interpretation and evaluates heterogeneity in treatment effects (HTE).

Methods: We analysed 60-day all-cause mortality and time to discharge alive from hospital using Bayesian models with weakly informative priors. HTE on mortality was assessed according to disease severity (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment [SOFA] score), acute kidney injury, and serum creatinine values at baseline.

Results: The absolute difference in mortality was 2.5% points (95% credible interval -6.9 to 12.4), with a 72% posterior probability of harm associated with high protein treatment. For time to discharge alive from hospital, the hazard ratio was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.80 to 1.04) with a 92% probability of harm for the high-dose protein group compared with the usual-dose protein group. There were 97% and 95% probabilities of positive interactions between the high protein intervention and serum creatinine and SOFA score at randomisation, respectively. Specifically, there was a potentially relatively higher mortality of high protein doses with higher baseline serum creatinine or SOFA scores.

Conclusions: We found moderate to high probabilities of harm with high protein doses compared with usual protein in ICU patients for the primary and secondary outcomes. We found suggestions of heterogeneity in treatment effects with worse outcomes in participants randomised to high protein doses with renal dysfunction or acute kidney injury and greater illness severity at baseline.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
期刊最新文献
A resuscitation tool for major obstetric haemorrhage: a nomogram that expresses quantitative blood loss relative to effective circulating blood volume. Balanced electrolyte solution with 1% glucose as intraoperative maintenance fluid in infants: a prospective study of glucose, electrolyte, and acid-base homeostasis. It is time to take a broader equity lens to highlight health inequalities in people with pain. The role of wearable technology in home-based prehabilitation: a scoping review. Corrigendum to "Effect of prolonged sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, propofol, and sevoflurane on sleep homeostasis in rats" [Br J Anaesth 132 (2024) 1248-1259].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1