Need Help?

Acute Respiratory Distress Network Early Versus Delayed Enteral Feeding to Treat People with Acute Lung Injury or Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDSNet EDEN-BioLINCC)

Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.

Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from ARDSNet-EDEN include bronchial lavage, plasma, DNA, and urine. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic and non-genetic research is subject to a tiered consent.

Objectives: To determine if initial lower-volume trophic enteral feeding would increase ventilator-free days (VFDs) and decrease gastrointestinal intolerances compared with initial full enteral feeding.

Background: Mechanically ventilated patients cannot eat normally and if not fed for long periods become malnourished. Because malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in critically ill patients, artificial nutrition is often provided, especially in those with acute lung injury (ALI) and with expected longer duration of mechanical ventilation. When feasible, enteral nutrition targeting full caloric needs has been advocated over parenteral nutrition. However, feeding intolerance and common care practices often serve as practical barriers to reaching recommended goals. Although confounded by indication and severity of illness, several observational studies have shown improved clinical outcomes, including fewer infections, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and lower mortality for patients receiving a higher percentage of calculated caloric needs. Nonetheless, the best timing, formulation, and amount of enteral nutrition remain unknown.

Participants: A total of 1,000 participants were enrolled.

Design: Participants were randomized, stratified by site and presence of shock at enrollment, to receive either trophic or full enteral feeding for the first 6 days of mechanical ventilation. The initial 272 patients were also simultaneously randomized to a separate trial (the OMEGA study) comparing a nutritional supplement containing omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants with an isocaloric, isovolemic control in a 2 × 2 factorial design.

The designated feeding strategy was initiated within 6 hours of randomization and continued until death, extubation, or day 6. The care of mechanically ventilated patients still receiving enteral feedings after day 6 was managed according to the full feeding strategy in both groups. In extubated patients who then required reintubation, enteral nutrition was restarted and managed according to the study protocol.

In the full-feeding group, enteral nutrition was initiated at 25 mL/h and advanced to goal rates as quickly as possible. Gastric residual volumes were checked every 6 hours while enteral feeding was increased. Patients randomized to the initial trophic-feeding group had enteral nutrition initiated at 10 mL/h (10-20 kcal/h) for the first 272 patients who also received the omega-3 or control supplement (240 mL volume per day). After the data and safety monitoring board stopped the OMEGA portion of the factorial design, the initial trophic feeding rate was changed to 20 kcal/h to approximate the calories that had been delivered in the OMEGA study. Gastric Residual Volumes (GRVs) were checked every 12 hours during trophic feeding. In patients randomized to trophic feeding, enteral nutrition was advanced to full-energy feeding rates following the same protocol used for the full-feeding group if they were still receiving mechanical ventilation at 144 hours.

Conclusions: There was no difference between groups with regard to the primary end point, VFDs to day 28. There also were no differences in 60-day mortality, organ failure−free days, ICU-free days, or the incidence of infection between groups. Similarly, there were no differences between groups in VFDs or survival when analyzed by body mass index category or when subsets of patients with shock or more severe lung injury (acute respiratory distress syndrome) were examined.

JAMA. 2012 Feb 22;307(8):795-803