Trial of Supplemental Parenteral Nutrition in Under and Over Weight Critically Ill Patients (TOP-UP) (TOP-UP)

February 23, 2021 updated by: Daren K. Heyland, Clinical Evaluation Research Unit at Kingston General Hospital

A Randomized Trial of Supplemental Parenteral Nutrition in Under and Over Weight Critically Ill Patients: The TOP UP Trial (Pilot)

The specific aim of the proposed study is to conduct a pilot study involving 160 critically-ill lean and obese patients enrolled at 11 sites in Canada, the United States of America, Belgium and France in order to:

Specific Aims

  • Confirm that we can achieve a clinically significant difference in calorie and protein intake between the two intervention groups.
  • Estimate recruitment rate i.e. number of eligible and enrolled patients per month per site.
  • Evaluate the safety, tolerance, and logistics around providing supplemental PN in the study population in the context of a multicenter trial, e.g.

    • To ensure adequate glycemic control in both groups.
    • To ensure that the other metabolic consequences of the feeding strategies are minimized.
    • To establish adequate compliance with study protocols and completion of case report forms

A secondary aim of this pilot study will be:

• To explore the effect of differential effects of calorie and protein delivery on muscle and mass function.

Study Overview

Status

Terminated

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

Background

Critically ill patients are often hypermetabolic and can rapidly become nutritionally compromised. Malnutrition is prevalent in these patients and has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Standard nutrition therapy, i.e. provision of calories, protein and other nutrients consists primarily of enteral nutrition (via a feeding tube into the gastrointestinal tract), parenteral nutrition (via an intravenous tube into the blood), or occasionally a combination of both.

However, the provision of nutrition is sub-optimal and the majority of critically-ill patients do not meet nutritional requirements. Recent studies report that average energy intakes of critically ill patients are only 49% to 70% of calculated requirements. Despite repeated, sustained efforts over the past few years, the investigators have not significantly improved the amount of calories delivered via the enteral route. This leads us to conclude that if the investigators are to be successful at increasing the provision of calories and protein to patients at-risk, the investigators will have to supplement the calories via the parenteral route.

Critically ill patients that are at extremes of weight are at a higher nutritional risk and have higher mortality rates. A recent International multicenter observational study of 2772 ICU patients from 165 ICUs showed a significant inverse linear relationship between the odds of mortality and total daily calories received. Increased amounts of calories was most important for the BMI < 20 group followed by the BMI 20 -< 25 group and BMI > 35 group with no benefit of increased calorie intake for patients in the BMI 25 -< 35 group. Feeding an additional 1000 kcals almost halved the odds of 60-day mortality in patients with a BMI < 25 or > 35. Similar results were observed for feeding an additional 30 grams of protein per day.

Thus, a prospective randomized trial is warranted to confirm our hypothesis that in patients with a BMI of < 25 and those with a BMI > 35 increasing the provision of more energy and protein can impact clinical outcomes. The results of this study will serve to answer some fundamental questions with regards to impact of amount of energy and protein delivered to nutritional at-risk ICU patients and will inform current practice.

Study Intervention:

Patients will be randomized to one of 2 interventions: enteral nutrition alone or enteral nutrition plus parenteral nutrition (supplemental PN group).

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

125

Phase

  • Phase 3

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

      • Brussels, Belgium, B - 1070
        • Erasme University Hospital
    • Alberta
      • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T5H 3V9
        • Royal Alexandra Hospital
      • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6L 5X8
        • Grey Nuns Hospital
      • Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T5H 3V9
        • University of Alberta
      • Strasbourg, France, F - 67091
        • Nouvel Hopital Civil
    • Colorado
      • Boulder, Colorado, United States, 80045
        • University of Colorado DHSC
    • Missouri
      • Saint Louis, Missouri, United States, 63141
        • Mercy Hospital St. Louis
      • Saint Louis, Missouri, United States, 63110-1093
        • Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis
    • Ohio
      • Cleveland, Ohio, United States, 44195
        • Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine
      • Columbus, Ohio, United States, 43221
        • The Ohio State Univsersity Medical Center
    • Oregon
      • Portland, Oregon, United States, 97239-3098
        • Oregon Health & Science University
    • Texas
      • Houston, Texas, United States, 77030
        • University of Texas Health Science Center

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Critically ill adult patient (≥ 18 years) admitted to ICU
  • Has acute respiratory failure (ARF) i.e. expected to remain mechanically ventilated for more than 48 hours
  • Expected ICU dependency of 5 or more days
  • On or expected to initiate enteral nutrition within 7 days of ICU admission
  • BMI <25 or ≥ 35 based on pre-ICU actual or estimated dry weight

Exclusion Criteria:

  • >72 hours from admission to ICU to time of consent
  • Not expected to survive an additional 48 hrs from screening evaluation
  • A lack of commitment to full aggressive care (anticipated withholding or withdrawing treatments in the first week but isolated DNR acceptable)
  • Patients already receiving PN at screening
  • Absence of All gastrointestinal risk factors, defined as:

    1. High Apache II Score (>20)
    2. On more than 1 vasopressor or increasing doses or vasopressors
    3. Receiving continuous infusion of narcotics
    4. High nasogastric/orogastric output (>500 mL over 24 hours)
    5. Recent surgery involving esophagus, stomach, or small bowel OR peritoneal contamination with bowel contents
    6. Pancreatitis
    7. Multiple gastrointestinal investigations
    8. Recent history of diarrhea/C. Difficile
    9. Surgical patients with future surgeries planned
    10. Ruptured or dissected abdominal aortic aneurysm
  • Patients admitted with diabetic ketoacidosis or non-ketotic hyperosmolar coma
  • Pregnant or lactating patients
  • Patients with clinical fulminant hepatic failure
  • Patients with Cirrhosis Child's Class C Liver Disease (except those on a transplant list or transplantable)
  • Dedicated port of central line not available
  • Known allergy to study nutrients (soy, eggs or olive products)
  • Enrolment in another industry sponsored ICU intervention study

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Prevention
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Enteral Nutrition + Parenteral Nutrition
Enteral nutrition with the addition of parenteral supplementation (Olimel 5.7%E/N9E).
OLIMEL(Amino Acids, Dextrose, Lipids, with / without Electrolytes) is indicated for parenteral nutrition for adults when oral or enteral nutrition is impossible, insufficient or contraindicated.
Other Names:
  • Olimel
No Intervention: Enteral Nutrition Only
Enteral nutrition only - no intervention

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Calorie & Protein Intake 7 Days Post Randomization
Time Frame: 7 days post randomization
Amount of calories & protein received as a percentage of prescribed.
7 days post randomization
Calorie & Protein Intake in First 27 Days
Time Frame: first 27 days
Amount of calories & protein received as a percentage of prescribed.
first 27 days

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
6 Month Mortality
Time Frame: 6 months
Kaplan-Meier estimate.
6 months
ICU Mortality
Time Frame: 6 months
6 months
Hospital Mortality
Time Frame: 6 months
6 months
Duration of ICU Stay
Time Frame: 6 months
6 months
Duration of Hospital Stay
Time Frame: 6 months
6 months
Duration of Mechanical Ventilation
Time Frame: 6 months
6 months
Development of ICU-acquired Infections
Time Frame: ICU discharge
ICU discharge
SF36-Physical Functioning Domain
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF-36 physical function domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
3 months
SF-36 Physical Functioning Domain
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF-36 physical function domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
6 months
Functional Status at Hospital Discharge
Time Frame: hospital discharge
hospital discharge
SF36 Role Physical Domain
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF-36 role physical function domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
3 months
SF36 Pain Index Domain
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF-36 pain index domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
3 months
SF36 General Health Perceptions Domain
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF-36 general health perceptions domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
3 months
SF36 Vitality Domain
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF-36 vitality domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
3 months
SF36 Social Functioning Domain
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF-36 social functioning domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
3 months
SF36 Role-emotional Domain
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF-36 role-emotion domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
3 months
SF36 Mental Health Index Domain
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF-36 mental health index domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
3 months
SF36 Standardized Physical Component Scale
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF36 Standardized Physical Component Scale has been scaled to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of 10 in a general US population. Higher scores indicate better HRQoL.
3 months
SF36 Standardized Mental Component Scale
Time Frame: 3 months
The SF36 Standardized Mental Component Scale has been scaled to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of 10 in a general US population. Higher scores indicate better HRQoL.
3 months
SF-36 Role-physical Domain
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF-36 mental health index domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
6 months
SF-36 Pain Index Domain
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF-36 mental health index domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
6 months
SF-36 General Health Perceptions Domain
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF-36 general health perceptions domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
6 months
SF-36 Vitality Domain
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF-36 vitality domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
6 months
SF-36 Social Functioning Domain
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF-36 social functioning domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
6 months
SF-36 Role-emotional Domain
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF-36 role-emotional domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
6 months
SF-36 Mental Health Index Domain
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF-36 mental health index domain ranges from 0-100. Higher scores indicate better outcome.
6 months
SF-36 Standardized Physical Component Scale
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF36 Standardized Physical Component Scale has been scaled to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of 10 in a general US population. Higher scores indicate better HRQoL.
6 months
SF-36 Standardized Mental Component Scale
Time Frame: 6 months
The SF36 Standardized mental Component Scale has been scaled to have a mean of zero and standard deviation of 10 in a general US population. Higher scores indicate better HRQoL.
6 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Study Chair: Daren K. Heyland, MD, Clinical Evaluation Research Unit, Kingston General Hospital

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

June 1, 2011

Primary Completion (Actual)

March 1, 2015

Study Completion (Actual)

July 1, 2015

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

September 14, 2010

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

September 20, 2010

First Posted (Estimate)

September 21, 2010

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 16, 2021

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 23, 2021

Last Verified

February 1, 2021

More Information

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Critical Illness

Clinical Trials on Olimel (5.7%E / N9E)

3
Subscribe