Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 14, 2026

An Educational Video Demonstration of How to Prone a Critically Ill Intubated Patient
Published on: November 30, 2022
[Impact of permissive underfeeding versus standard enteral feeding on outcomes in critical patients requiring
Nianbin Ma1, Mingfu Shen, Zhen Wan
1Department of Intensive Care Unit, Anji People's Hospital, Huzhou 313300, Zhejiang, China. Corresponding author: Ma Nianbin,
Objective:
To compare the impact of permissive underfeeding versus standard enteral feeding on outcomes in critical patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV).
Methods:
A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted. Eighty-two patients requiring MV admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) of Anji People's Hospital from January 2015 to March 2017 were enrolled, and they were randomly divided into the permissive underfeeding group (n = 40, non-protein heat was 52.3-62.8 kJ×kg-1×d-1, protein was 1.2-1.5 g×kg-1×d-1) and standard enteral feeding group (n = 42, non-protein heat was 104.6-125.5 kJ×kg-1×d-1, protein was 1.2-1.5 g×kg-1×d-1). Permissive underfeeding group received 50% of their daily energy expenditure via enteral nutrition (EN) and standard enteral feeding group received 100% of their daily energy expenditure via EN in 24-48 hours after admitted to ICU. Nutritional status [pro-albumin (PA), serum albumin (ALB)], inflammation state [procalcitonin (PCT), hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP)] were detected before treatment and 7 days after treatment. Duration of MV, length of ICU stay, daily insulin dosage, 28-day mortality, hospital acquired pneumonia (HAP), urinary tract infection, septic shock and other secondary infection, and the nutrition related complications were recorded.
Results:
Compared with before treatment, the levels of serum PA (mg/L) and ALB (g/L) were significantly increased, the levels of PCT (ng/L) and hs-CRP (mg/L) were significantly decreased at 7 days after treatment in both groups [permissive underfeeding group: PA was 127.42±65.83 vs. 80.92±60.14, ALB was 30.16±4.32 vs. 25.36±6.21, PCT was 375.8±227.2 vs. 762.3±314.5, hs-CRP was 32.19±7.53 vs. 120.48±60.24; standard enteral feeding group: PA was 132.56±61.32 vs. 86.78±47.06, ALB was 31.25±4.63 vs. 26.71±5.48, PCT was 412.1±323.4 vs. 821.7±408.6, hs-CRP was 35.86±5.69 vs. 116.38±72.16, all P < 0.05], but there was no significant difference in PA, ALB, PCT or hs-CRP at 7 days after treatment between two groups (all P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the duration of MV, length of ICU stay, 28-day mortality or ICU-associated infection between two groups [duration of MV (hours): 162.35±20.37 vs. 153.48±18.65, length of ICU stay (days): 7.52±1.61 vs. 6.34±1.87, 28-day mortality: 17.5% vs. 19.0%, ICU-associated infection: 45.0% vs. 47.6%, all P > 0.05]. Compared with standard enteral feeding, insulin demand was significantly decreased (U/d: 13.68±10.36 vs. 26.24±18.53), and gastrointestinal intolerance was less frequent (32.5% vs. 54.8%) in the permissive underfeeding group (both P < 0.05). Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups (χ2 = 3.216, P = 0.068).
Conclusions:
The curative effect and prognosis of MV severe patients receiving permissive underfeeding are similar to those of standard enteral feeding, but it can reduce the dosage of insulin with better gastrointestinal tolerance.
Insights
Permissive underfeeding in mechanically ventilated patients shows similar outcomes to standard enteral feeding but reduces insulin needs and improves gastrointestinal tolerance. This approach offers comparable efficacy with enhanced patient comfort.
Area of Science:
- Critical Care Medicine
- Nutritional Support
- Mechanical Ventilation
Background:
- Optimal nutritional support is crucial for critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV).
- Standard enteral feeding aims to meet full energy expenditure, but potential risks exist.
- Permissive underfeeding, providing a reduced caloric intake, warrants investigation in this population.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the clinical outcomes of permissive underfeeding versus standard enteral feeding in patients on mechanical ventilation.
- To evaluate the impact on nutritional status, inflammatory markers, and secondary infections.
- To assess secondary outcomes including insulin dosage and gastrointestinal tolerance.
Main Methods:
- A prospective randomized controlled study enrolled 82 patients requiring mechanical ventilation.
- Patients were assigned to either permissive underfeeding (50% energy expenditure) or standard enteral feeding (100% energy expenditure).
- Nutritional markers (pro-albumin, albumin), inflammation (procalcitonin, hs-CRP), MV duration, ICU stay, mortality, and infection rates were assessed.
Main Results:
- Both groups showed significant improvements in nutritional markers and reductions in inflammatory markers post-treatment.
- No significant differences were observed between groups in mechanical ventilation duration, ICU length of stay, or 28-day mortality.
- Permissive underfeeding resulted in significantly lower insulin demand and reduced gastrointestinal intolerance compared to standard feeding.
Conclusions:
- Permissive underfeeding demonstrates comparable efficacy to standard enteral feeding in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients.
- This feeding strategy offers significant advantages by reducing insulin requirements and improving gastrointestinal tolerance.
- Permissive underfeeding presents a viable alternative for nutritional support in this patient cohort.
Related Concept Videos
Mechanical Ventilation II: Invasive Ventilation
Negative-Pressure Ventilators
Negative-pressure ventilators create a vacuum around the chest or body to draw air into the lungs, simulating breathing. This method does not require an...
Mechanical Ventilation III: Noninvasive Ventilation
Noninvasive Positive-Pressure Ventilation...
Enteral Nutrition I: Orogastric and Nasogastric Feeding
Orogastric (OG) and nasogastric (NG) feeding are two standard methods used for enteral nutrition. Enteral nutrition is often preferred over...
Enteral Nutrition II: Nasointestinal and Gastrostomy Feeding
Nasointestinal Feeding
Nasointestinal feeding involves placing a tube...
Mechanical Ventilation I: Indication and Settings
Bioequivalence Experimental Study Designs: Completely Randomized and Randomized Block Designs

