Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025
Author Spotlight: Methodologies and Advancements of Chronic Pain Management Research
Published on: January 5, 2024
Six-month outcomes after traumatic brain injury in the Augmented versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy
Kym Wittholz1, Kate Fetterplace1, Lee-Anne Chapple2
1Department of Allied Health, Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan Street, Parkville Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Department of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Background:
Critically ill patients with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) may require prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) admission and hence receive greater exposure to hospital enteral nutrition. It is unknown if augmented energy delivery with enteral nutrition during ICU admission impacts quality of life in survivors or gastrointestinal tolerance during nutrition delivery in the ICU.
Objectives:
The objective of this study was to compare health-related quality of life, using the EuroQol five-dimensions five-level visual analogue scale at 6 months, in survivors who presented with a TBI and received augmented energy (1.5 kcal/ml) to those who received routine energy (1.0 kcal/ml). Secondary objectives were to explore differences in total energy and protein delivery, gastrointestinal tolerance, and mortality between groups.
Methods:
Secondary analysis of participants admitted with a TBI in the Augmented versus Routine Approach to Giving Energy Trial (TARGET) randomised controlled trial. Data are represented as n (%) or median (interquartile range).
Results:
Of the 3957 patients in TARGET, 231 (5.8%) were admitted after a TBI (augmented = 124; routine = 107). Patients within TARGET who were admitted with a TBI were relatively young (42 [27, 61] years) and received TARGET enteral nutrition for an extended period (9 [5, 15] days). At 6 months, EuroQol five-dimensions five-level quality-of-life scores were available for 166 TBI survivors (72% of TBI cohort randomised, augmented = 97, routine = 69). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life (augmented = 70 [52, 90]; routine = 70 [55, 85]; median difference augmented vs routine = 0 [95% confidence interval: -5, 10]). TBI participants assigned to augmented energy received more energy with a similar protein than the routine group. Gastrointestinal tolerance was similar between groups.
Conclusion:
While patients admitted after a TBI received enteral nutrition for an extended period, an increased exposure to augmented energy did not affect survivors' quality-of-life scores.
