• Alexander Decruyenaere, Johan Steen, Kirsten Colpaert, Dominique D Benoit, Johan Decruyenaere, and Stijn Vansteelandt.
• Department of Internal Medicine and Pediatrics, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium. alexander.decruyenaere@ugent.be.
• Crit Care. 2020 Aug 5; 24 (1): 485.

BackgroundWhile obesity confers an increased risk of death in the general population, numerous studies have reported an association between obesity and improved survival among critically ill patients. This contrary finding has been referred to as the obesity paradox. In this retrospective study, two causal inference approaches were used to address whether the survival of non-obese critically ill patients would have been improved if they had been obese.MethodsThe study cohort comprised 6557 adult critically ill patients hospitalized at the Intensive Care Unit of the Ghent University Hospital between 2015 and 2017. Obesity was defined as a body mass index of ≥ 30 kg/m2. Two causal inference approaches were used to estimate the average effect of obesity in the non-obese (AON): a traditional approach that used regression adjustment for confounding and that assumed missingness completely at random and a robust approach that used machine learning within the targeted maximum likelihood estimation framework along with multiple imputation of missing values under the assumption of missingness at random. 1754 (26.8%) patients were discarded in the traditional approach because of at least one missing value for obesity status or confounders.ResultsObesity was present in 18.9% of patients. The in-hospital mortality was 14.6% in non-obese patients and 13.5% in obese patients. The raw marginal risk difference for in-hospital mortality between obese and non-obese patients was - 1.06% (95% confidence interval (CI) - 3.23 to 1.11%, P = 0.337). The traditional approach resulted in an AON of - 2.48% (95% CI - 4.80 to - 0.15%, P = 0.037), whereas the robust approach yielded an AON of - 0.59% (95% CI - 2.77 to 1.60%, P = 0.599).ConclusionsA causal inference approach that is robust to residual confounding bias due to model misspecification and selection bias due to missing (at random) data mitigates the obesity paradox observed in critically ill patients, whereas a traditional approach results in even more paradoxical findings. The robust approach does not provide evidence that the survival of non-obese critically ill patients would have been improved if they had been obese.

24 keywords...

hide…