search
Back to results

Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision Via the Enteral Route in Critically Ill Patients (PEPuP)

Primary Purpose

Critically Ill

Status
Completed
Phase
Not Applicable
Locations
International
Study Type
Interventional
Intervention
PEP uP Protocol
Sponsored by
Clinical Evaluation Research Unit at Kingston General Hospital
About
Eligibility
Locations
Arms
Outcomes
Full info

About this trial

This is an interventional supportive care trial for Critically Ill focused on measuring Critically ill, Nutrition therapy, Enteral nutrition

Eligibility Criteria

18 Years - undefined (Adult, Older Adult)All SexesDoes not accept healthy volunteers

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Critically ill adults (i.e. >18 years of age)
  • Mechanically ventilated before or within the first 6 hours of admission to ICU

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Nutrition (either EN or Parenteral Nutrition (PN)) started before admission to ICU
  • Not intubated within 6 hours of admission to ICU
  • Receiving non-invasive ventilation (i.e. mask ventilation) during the first 6 hours of ICU stay
  • Moribund (as evidenced by death within 48 hours of admission to ICU)

Sites / Locations

  • Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System
  • Medical Center of the Rockies
  • Washington Health Center
  • Henry Ford Macomb Hospital
  • CoxHealth
  • Lakes Region General Hospital
  • Nassau University Medical Center
  • Vassar Brothers Medical Center
  • South Texas Veterans Health Care System Audie L. Murphy Division
  • Foothills Medical Centre
  • St Paul's Hospital
  • Rouge Valley Health System - Ajax and Pickering Site
  • William Osler Health Centre - Brampton Civic Campus
  • William Osler Health Centre - Etobicoke Campus
  • St Joseph's Healthcare
  • The Credit Valley Hospital
  • Rouge Valley Health System - Centenary Site
  • Pasqua Hospital

Arms of the Study

Arm 1

Arm 2

Arm Type

Experimental

No Intervention

Arm Label

PEP uP Protocol

Standard Feeding Protocol

Arm Description

PEP-uP protocol and treatment algorithm implemented for all patients in ICU.

Enteral feeds are guided by a standard feeding protocol specified by pre-printed ICU admission orders. The admitting physician has the option of initiating the enteral feeding protocol or keeping the patient nil per os (NPO).

Outcomes

Primary Outcome Measures

Percentage of Prescribed Calories From Energy
Total calories received from enteral nutrition/total prescription up to 12 evaluable ICU days
Percentage of Prescribed Protein
Total protein received from enteral nutrition/total prescription up to 12 evaluable ICU days

Secondary Outcome Measures

Timeliness of Initiation of EN
Time of the initiation of EN from ICU admit
Percentage of Participants With Vomiting
Percentage of Participants With Pneumonia

Full Information

First Posted
July 20, 2010
Last Updated
April 6, 2021
Sponsor
Clinical Evaluation Research Unit at Kingston General Hospital
Collaborators
Société des Produits Nestlé (SPN)
search

1. Study Identification

Unique Protocol Identification Number
NCT01167595
Brief Title
Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision Via the Enteral Route in Critically Ill Patients
Acronym
PEPuP
Official Title
A Multicenter, Cluster Randomized Trial of Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision Via the Enteral Route Feeding Protocol in Critically Ill Patients: The PEP uP Protocol
Study Type
Interventional

2. Study Status

Record Verification Date
April 2021
Overall Recruitment Status
Completed
Study Start Date
September 2010 (undefined)
Primary Completion Date
November 2011 (Actual)
Study Completion Date
November 2011 (Actual)

3. Sponsor/Collaborators

Responsible Party, by Official Title
Principal Investigator
Name of the Sponsor
Clinical Evaluation Research Unit at Kingston General Hospital
Collaborators
Société des Produits Nestlé (SPN)

4. Oversight

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product
No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product
No
Data Monitoring Committee
No

5. Study Description

Brief Summary
Critically ill patients are consistently underfed. Feeding protocols are standardized system tools used to guide nutrition practices, but to date have failed to improve delivery of nutrition. The PEP uP Protocol is a new enhanced feeding protocol. Twenty North American Intensive Care Units (ICUs) will assess baseline nutrition practices. Ten ICUs will be randomized to implement the PEP uP Protocol and educational intervention, and ten will be randomized to continue usual care. Nutrition practices will be reevaluated 6 months after baseline. The investigators hypothesize that the PEP uP Protocol will increase delivery of nutrition, and may ultimately lead to improved survival of critical illness.
Detailed Description
There is a well known and well described relationship between malnutrition, immune dysfunction, and infection. Critically ill patients are often hypermetabolic and can rapidly become nutritionally compromised. Repeated efforts over the past few years have not significantly improved the amount of calories delivered via the enteral route. Historically, feeding protocols have been used to guide the delivery of enteral nutrition (EN) but they frequently utilize conservative, reactionary approaches to optimizing nutrition. We propose a new, innovative approach that protocolizes an aggressive set of strategies to providing EN and shifts the paradigm from reactionary to proactive followed by de-escalation if nutrition therapy is not needed. The key components of this new protocol are the following: 1) Starting feeds at the target rate based on increasing evidence that some patients tolerate starting nutrition at a higher rate of delivery and that slow start ups are not necessary. For patients who are hemodynamically stable, we propose to shift from an hourly rate target goal to a 24 hour volume goal and give nurses guidance on how to make up this volume if there was an interruption for non-gastrointestinal reasons. This 'volume-based' goal represents a significant shift in practice from traditional fixed hourly rate goals to a new protocol in which nurses can increase the hourly rate depending on how many hours they have left in the day to ensure that the patient receives the 24 hour volume within the day. 2) For patients who are deemed unsuitable for high volume intragastric feeds, we provide an option to initiate 'trophic feeds.' Trophic feeds represent an idea to provide a low volume of a concentrated feeding solution for 24 hours or longer, designed to maintain gastrointestinal structure and function rather than meet their protein and caloric goals. This option should reduce the numbers of patients ordered to be kept nil per os (NPO). Thus, PEP uP patients may gain some of the benefit of early EN. 3) To optimize tolerance in the early phase of critical illness, we propose to use a semi elemental feeding solution instead of a standard polymeric solution. There is some evidence that these semi elemental solutions are better assimilated than polymeric solutions in the critical care setting. These solutions can be changed to a more traditional polymeric solution once the patient is tolerating adequate amounts of nutrition. 4) Rather than wait for a protein debt to accumulate because of inadequate delivery of EN, protein supplements are prescribed at initiation of EN and can be discontinued if EN is well tolerated and they are receiving all their protein requirements through their standard EN. This strategy guarantees that the patient will most likely receive all their protein requirements in the early phase of their critical illness. 5) Rather than wait for a problem with gastrointestinal tolerance to develop, we propose to start motility agents at the same time EN is started with a re-evaluation in the days following to see if it is necessary. By preventing delayed gastric emptying, which frequently occurs in this patient population, we can improve nutritional adequacy. 6) Based on emerging evidence that a higher gastric residual volume (the volume of feeds remaining in the stomach when the bedside nurse aspirates the feeding tube) is safe and perhaps results in greater nutritional adequacy, we will include a higher gastric residual volume of 300ml in our protocol. It has been shown in one randomized trial that a feeding protocol that starts a motility agent empirically at the time of initiation of feeds and uses a higher threshold for a critical gastric residual volume (250 ml) improves nutritional adequacy. Since the bedside nurses initiate and utilize feeding protocols to achieve target goals, we will couple this newer generational feeding protocol with a comprehensive nurse-directed nutritional educational intervention that will focus on its safe and effective implementation. This focus on nursing nutrition education represents a major shift away from traditional education which has focused on dietitians and physicians. Our hypothesis is that this aggressive feeding protocol combined with a nurse-directed nutrition educational intervention will be safe, acceptable, and effectively increase protein and energy delivery to critically ill patients. We postulate that this increased provision of calories and protein may translate into improved clinical outcomes, particularly for the patients at the extremes of weight, but the current study is not powered to demonstrate such a difference.

6. Conditions and Keywords

Primary Disease or Condition Being Studied in the Trial, or the Focus of the Study
Critically Ill
Keywords
Critically ill, Nutrition therapy, Enteral nutrition

7. Study Design

Primary Purpose
Supportive Care
Study Phase
Not Applicable
Interventional Study Model
Parallel Assignment
Masking
None (Open Label)
Allocation
Randomized
Enrollment
1059 (Actual)

8. Arms, Groups, and Interventions

Arm Title
PEP uP Protocol
Arm Type
Experimental
Arm Description
PEP-uP protocol and treatment algorithm implemented for all patients in ICU.
Arm Title
Standard Feeding Protocol
Arm Type
No Intervention
Arm Description
Enteral feeds are guided by a standard feeding protocol specified by pre-printed ICU admission orders. The admitting physician has the option of initiating the enteral feeding protocol or keeping the patient nil per os (NPO).
Intervention Type
Other
Intervention Name(s)
PEP uP Protocol
Intervention Description
Protocol documents (i.e. pre-printed order, algorithm for advancing feed, and algorithm for calculating rate of administering feed as per 24hour volume) and a slide presentation coupled with educational reminders (posters and bedside notices) and practice helps (tool to remind nurse to measure and report nutritional adequacy) will be made available to all nurses, in bedside manuals and/or on the local intranet.
Primary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Percentage of Prescribed Calories From Energy
Description
Total calories received from enteral nutrition/total prescription up to 12 evaluable ICU days
Time Frame
first 12 days
Title
Percentage of Prescribed Protein
Description
Total protein received from enteral nutrition/total prescription up to 12 evaluable ICU days
Time Frame
first 12 days
Secondary Outcome Measure Information:
Title
Timeliness of Initiation of EN
Description
Time of the initiation of EN from ICU admit
Time Frame
60 days
Title
Percentage of Participants With Vomiting
Time Frame
60 days
Title
Percentage of Participants With Pneumonia
Time Frame
60 days

10. Eligibility

Sex
All
Minimum Age & Unit of Time
18 Years
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Eligibility Criteria
Inclusion Criteria: Critically ill adults (i.e. >18 years of age) Mechanically ventilated before or within the first 6 hours of admission to ICU Exclusion Criteria: Nutrition (either EN or Parenteral Nutrition (PN)) started before admission to ICU Not intubated within 6 hours of admission to ICU Receiving non-invasive ventilation (i.e. mask ventilation) during the first 6 hours of ICU stay Moribund (as evidenced by death within 48 hours of admission to ICU)
Overall Study Officials:
First Name & Middle Initial & Last Name & Degree
Daren K Heyland, MD
Organizational Affiliation
Clinical Evaluation Research Unit
Official's Role
Principal Investigator
Facility Information:
Facility Name
Phoenix Veterans Affairs Health Care System
City
Phoenix
State/Province
Arizona
Country
United States
Facility Name
Medical Center of the Rockies
City
Loveland
State/Province
Colorado
Country
United States
Facility Name
Washington Health Center
City
Washington
State/Province
District of Columbia
ZIP/Postal Code
20010
Country
United States
Facility Name
Henry Ford Macomb Hospital
City
Clinton Township
State/Province
Michigan
Country
United States
Facility Name
CoxHealth
City
Springfield
State/Province
Missouri
Country
United States
Facility Name
Lakes Region General Hospital
City
Laconia
State/Province
New Hampshire
Country
United States
Facility Name
Nassau University Medical Center
City
East Meadow
State/Province
New York
Country
United States
Facility Name
Vassar Brothers Medical Center
City
Poughkeepsie
State/Province
New York
Country
United States
Facility Name
South Texas Veterans Health Care System Audie L. Murphy Division
City
San Antonio
State/Province
Texas
Country
United States
Facility Name
Foothills Medical Centre
City
Calgary
State/Province
Alberta
Country
Canada
Facility Name
St Paul's Hospital
City
Vancouver
State/Province
British Columbia
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Rouge Valley Health System - Ajax and Pickering Site
City
Ajax
State/Province
Ontario
Country
Canada
Facility Name
William Osler Health Centre - Brampton Civic Campus
City
Brampton
State/Province
Ontario
Country
Canada
Facility Name
William Osler Health Centre - Etobicoke Campus
City
Etobicoke
State/Province
Ontario
Country
Canada
Facility Name
St Joseph's Healthcare
City
Hamilton
State/Province
Ontario
ZIP/Postal Code
L8N 4A6
Country
Canada
Facility Name
The Credit Valley Hospital
City
Mississauga
State/Province
Ontario
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Rouge Valley Health System - Centenary Site
City
Scarborough
State/Province
Ontario
Country
Canada
Facility Name
Pasqua Hospital
City
Regina
State/Province
Saskatchewan
Country
Canada

12. IPD Sharing Statement

Citations:
PubMed Identifier
20429886
Citation
Heyland DK, Cahill NE, Dhaliwal R, Wang M, Day AG, Alenzi A, Aris F, Muscedere J, Drover JW, McClave SA. Enhanced protein-energy provision via the enteral route in critically ill patients: a single center feasibility trial of the PEP uP protocol. Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R78. doi: 10.1186/cc8991. Epub 2010 Apr 29.
Results Reference
background
PubMed Identifier
24748597
Citation
Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Lemieux M, Wang M, Day AG. Implementing the PEP uP Protocol in Critical Care Units in Canada: Results of a Multicenter, Quality Improvement Study. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2015 Aug;39(6):698-706. doi: 10.1177/0148607114531787. Epub 2014 Apr 18.
Results Reference
result
Links:
URL
http://www.criticalcarenutrition.com
Description
website

Learn more about this trial

Enhanced Protein-Energy Provision Via the Enteral Route in Critically Ill Patients

We'll reach out to this number within 24 hrs