Outcomes six-months after 100% or 70% of enteral calorie requirements during critical illness (TARGET): a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Rationale: The long-term effects of delivering approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake via the enteral route during critical illness compared to a lesser amount of calories are unknown. Objectives: Our hypotheses were that achieving approximately 100% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness would increase quality of life scores, return to work and key life activities and reduce death and disability six months later. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, blinded, parallel group, randomized clinical trial, with 3957 mechanically ventilated critically ill adults allocated to energy-dense (1.5 kcal/ml) or routine (1.0 kcal/ml) enteral nutrition. Measurements and Main Results: Participants assigned energy-dense nutrition received more calories (% recommended energy intake, mean (SD) (energy-dense: 103% (28) vs. usual: 69% (18)). Mortality at day-180 was similar (560/1895 (29.6%) vs. 539/1920 (28.1%); relative risk 1.05 (95%CI, 0.95 to 1.16)). At a median [IQR] of 185 [182, 193] days after randomization, 2492 survivors were surveyed and reported similar quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions five-level quality of life questionnaire visual analogue scale, median [IQR]: 75 [60-85]; group difference: 0 (95%CI, 0 to 0)). Similar numbers of participants returned to work with no difference in hours worked or effectiveness at work (n=818). There was no observed difference in disability (n=1208) or participation in key life activities (n=705). Conclusions: The delivery of approximately 100% compared to 70% of recommended calorie intake during critical illness does not improve quality of life, or functional outcomes, or increase the number of survivors six months later.