Timing of (supplemental) parenteral nutrition in critically ill patients: a systematic review

Table 4 Primary end points in included studies and results for EPN, LPN and EN groups

Primary end points	Studies
	RCT				Prospective observational study
	Bauer 2000[[11]]	Casaer 2011[[13]]	Doig 2013[[14]]	Heidegger 2013[[15]]	Cahill 2011 [[12]]	Kutsogiannis 2011[[16]]
ICU length of stay (median days)	x	3 days (LPN) vs 4 days (EPN); HR 1.06; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13; p = 0.04	x	x	x	x
Mortality; day 60	x	x	22.8% (standard care) vs 21.5% (EPN), RD −1.26%; 95% CI −6.6 to 4.1; p = 0.60	x	x	x
Nosocomial infection between days 9 to 28	x	x	x	27% (EN + LPN) vs 38% (EN); HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; p = 0.0338	x	x
Alive discharge from hospital	x	x	x	x	x	EN + EPN vs EN: HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.96; EN + LPN vs EN: HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.81
Retinol-binding protein (RBP)	Significant increase in EN + EPN vs EN + placebo from day 0 to day 7; p = 0.0496	x	x	x	x	x
Prealbumin	Significant increase in EPN vs placebo (day 0 to day 7); p = 0.0369	x	x	x	x	x

RCT, randomized control trial; ICU, intensive care unit; x, not investigated as a primary end point; LPN, late parenteral nutrition; EPN, early parenteral nutrition; HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval; p, p-value; vs, versus; RD, risk difference; EN, enteral nutrition. NB: studies used different definitions for EPN, LPN and EN. In the study by Cahill et al. [12], no primary end point was described.