Background & aimsHigh-fat, low-carbohydrate enteral nutrition has gained attention, with expectations of an improved respiratory condition, fewer complications, and lower mortality. The present study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to examine the effects of high-fat, low-carbohydrate enteral nutrition in critically ill adult patients. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE via Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ICHUSHI for randomized controlled trials comparing high-fat, low-carbohydrate enteral nutrition to standard enteral nutrition in critically ill adult patients who received enteral nutrition. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, length of ICU stay, length of mechanical ventilation, and adverse events of diarrhea and gastric residual volume. We examined the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Synthesis results were calculated with risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. ResultsEight trials with 607 patients were included. The effects of high-fat, low-carbohydrate enteral nutrition on mortality did not significantly differ from those of standard enteral nutrition (62/280 [22.1%] vs. 39/207 [18.8%], risk ratios=1.14, 95% confidence intervals 0.80 to 1.62, P=0.47). No significant differences were observed in ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, diarrhea, or gastric residual volume between the two groups. However, high-fat, low-carbohydrate enteral nutrition was associated with a significantly shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -1.72 days, 95% confidence intervals -2.93 to -0.50, P=0.005). ConclusionHigh-fat, low-carbohydrate enteral nutrition may not affect mortality, but may decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill adult patients. Limitations include the small number of studies and potential for bias. Further research is needed to confirm these results and investigate effects on other outcomes and in a subgroup of patients requiring mechanical ventilation.
Read full abstract