Energy expenditure in mechanically ventilated patients: The weight of body weight!. Issue 1 (February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Graf, Séverine; Pichard, Claude; Genton, Laurence; Oshima, Taku; Heidegger, Claudia Paula
• Is Part Of: Clinical nutrition. Volume 36:Issue 1(2017:Feb.)
• Page Start: 224
• Page End: 228
• Publication Date: 2017-02
• Subjects: Indirect calorimetry -- Predictive equations -- Energy expenditure -- Body weight -- Intensive care unit; Critically ill -- Nutrition -- Periodicals; Diet therapy -- Periodicals; Parenteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral feeding -- Periodicals; Enteral Nutrition -- Periodicals; Parenteral Nutrition -- Periodicals; Metabolism -- Periodicals; Diétothérapie -- Périodiques; Alimentation parentérale -- Périodiques; Alimentation entérale -- Périodiques; Nutrition -- Périodiques; Diet therapy; Enteral feeding; Nutrition; Parenteral feeding; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 615.854
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2015.11.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0261-5614

Abstract

Summary: Background & aims: Optimal nutritional care for intensive care unit (ICU) patients requires precise determination of energy expenditure (EE) to avoid deleterious under- or overfeeding. The reference method, indirect calorimetry (IC), is rarely accessible and inconstantly feasible. Various equations for predicting EE based on body weight (BW) are available. This study aims at determining the best prediction strategy unless IC is available. Methods: Mechanically ventilated patients staying ≥72 h in the ICU were included, except those with contraindications for IC measurements. IC and BW measurements were routinely performed. EE was predicted by the ESPEN formula and other predictive equations using BW (i.e. anamnestic (AN), measured (MES), adjusted for cumulated water balance (ADJ), calculated for a body mass index (BMI) of 22.5). Comparisons were made using Pearson correlation and Bland & Altman plots. Results: 85 patients (57 ± 19 y, 61 men, SAPS II 43 ± 16) were included. Correlations between IC and predicted EE using the ESPEN formula with different BW (BWAN, BWMES, BWADJ, and BWBMI22.5 ) were 0.44, 0.40, 0.36, and 0.47, respectively. Bland & Altman plots showed wide and inconsistent variations. Predictive equations including body temperature and minute ventilation showed the best correlations, but when using various BWs, differences in predicted EE were observed. Conclusion: No EE predictive equation, regardless of the BW used, gives statistically identical results to IC. If IC cannot be performed, predictive equations including minute ventilation and body temperature should be preferred. BW has a significant impact on estimated EE and the use of measured BWMES or BWBMI 22.5 is associated with the best EE prediction. Clinical trial registration number on ClinicalTrial.gov:NCT02552446 . Ethical committee number: CE-14-070.