An observational study in Critical Illness, sponsored by Assiut University. Status unknown. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 75 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-09-11.
Sponsored by Assiut University · Observational
Supplementation of insufficient enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition may optimize nutritional support and avert negative energy balance in critically ill patients, thereby improving outcome.
Malnutrition is a common and serious problem in intensive care units. Negative energy balance has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients. The increased incidence of complications related to malnutrition correlates with increased length of hospital stay and overall health care costs. Although early enteral nutrition is the preferred method of feeding critically ill patients, enteral nutrition alone often fails to supply adequate calories and nutrients to critically ill patients, who are frequently hypermetabolic.
Artificial nutrition support has evolved into a primary therapeutic intervention to prevent metabolic deterioration and loss of lean body mass with the aim to improve the outcome of critically ill patients. Apart from the timing of initiation and the targeted amount of macronutrients, the route of delivery is viewed as an important determinant of the effect of the nutritional intervention.
Using the enteral route is considered to be more physiologic, providing nutritional and various non-nutritional benefits including maintenance of structural and functional gut integrity as well as preserving intestinal microbial diversity.
The disadvantage of enteral nutrition is related to a potential lower nutritional adequacy particularly in the acute disease phase and in the presence of gastrointestinal dysfunction.
In contrast, parenteral nutrition may better secure the intended nutritional intake but is associated with more infectious complications, most likely due to hyperalimentation and hyperglycemia.
Supplementation of insufficient enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition may optimize nutritional support and avert negative energy balance in critically ill patients, thereby improving outcome.
Combining parenteral nutrition with enteral nutrition constitutes a strategy to prevent nutritional deficit but may increase risk of overfeeding, which has been associated with liver dysfunction, infection, and prolonged ventilatory support.
1,780 studies on the registry are indexed under Critical Illness; 442 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 100 is below the median of 140 across 814 observational studies indexed under Critical Illness.
Browse Critical Illness studies →Assiut University is the lead sponsor of 5,079 studies on the registry; 2,177 are open to participants now.
Of its 14 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Data will be collected and analyzed using SPSS version 20. Normally distributed data will be expressed in form of mean and SD while not normally distributed data will be expressed in form of median and range. Nominal data will be expressed in form of frequency (percentage). P value will be significant if \< 0.05.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
good dietary supplement for critically ill patients
ts Overall mortality
Determined by hospital records.
Time frame: one year
No study locations are listed for this record.
Start is estimated for Jan 2018; primary completion for Jan 2019, 12 months later.
Of 439 non-industry observational studies under Critical Illness, half reached primary completion within 23 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 45. This study's planned 12 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 442 studies reached it within 23 months; a quarter within 12 and three quarters within 46.
Critical Illness covers many different conditions, not one, so the studies compared here vary widely. Read these figures as a rough guide.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is status unknown, as verified in Sep 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.