BACKGROUND: Indirect calorimetry (IC) with metabolic monitors is widely used for noninvasive assessment of energy expenditure and macronutrient oxidation in health and disease. OBJECTIVE: To overcome deficiencies in validity and reliability of metabolic monitors, we established a procedure that allowed correction for monitor-specific deviations. DESIGN: Randomized comparative IC (canopy mode) with the Deltatrac MBM-100 (Datex) and Vmax Encore 29n (SensorMedix) was performed in postabsorptive (overnight fast >8 h) healthy subjects (n = 40). In vitro validation was performed by simulation of oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide output (VCO2) rates by using mass-flow regulators and pure gases. A simulation-based postcalorimetric calibration of cart readouts [individual calibration control evaluation (ICcE)] was established in adults (n = 24). RESULTS: The comparison of carefully calibrated monitors showed marked differences in VCO2 and VO2 (P < 0.01) and derived metabolic variables [resting energy expenditure (REE), respiratory quotient (RQ), glucose/carbohydrate oxidation (Gox), and fat oxidation (Fox); P < 0.001]. Correlations appeared to be acceptable for breath gas rates and REE (R(2) ~ 0.9) but were unacceptable for RQ (R(2) = 0.3), Gox, and Fox (R(2) = 0.2). In vitro simulation experiments showed monitor-dependent interferences for VCO2 and VO2 as follows: 1) within series, nonlinear and variable deviations of monitor readouts at different exchange rates; 2) between series, differences and unsteady variability; and 3) differences in individual monitor characteristics (eg, rate dependence, stability, imprecision). The introduction of the postcalorimetric recalibration by ICcE resulted in an adjustment of gas exchange rates and the derived metabolic variables with reasonable correlations (R(2) > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Differential, metabolic, monitor-specific deviations are the primary determinants for lack of accuracy, comparability, and transferability of results. This problem can be overcome by the present postcalorimetric ICcE procedure.
BACKGROUND: Indirect calorimetry (IC) with metabolic monitors is widely used for noninvasive assessment of energy expenditure and macronutrient oxidation in health and disease. OBJECTIVE: To overcome deficiencies in validity and reliability of metabolic monitors, we established a procedure that allowed correction for monitor-specific deviations. DESIGN: Randomized comparative IC (canopy mode) with the Deltatrac MBM-100 (Datex) and Vmax Encore 29n (SensorMedix) was performed in postabsorptive (overnight fast >8 h) healthy subjects (n = 40). In vitro validation was performed by simulation of oxygen consumption (VO2) and carbon dioxide output (VCO2) rates by using mass-flow regulators and pure gases. A simulation-based postcalorimetric calibration of cart readouts [individual calibration control evaluation (ICcE)] was established in adults (n = 24). RESULTS: The comparison of carefully calibrated monitors showed marked differences in VCO2 and VO2 (P < 0.01) and derived metabolic variables [resting energy expenditure (REE), respiratory quotient (RQ), glucose/carbohydrate oxidation (Gox), and fat oxidation (Fox); P < 0.001]. Correlations appeared to be acceptable for breath gas rates and REE (R(2) ~ 0.9) but were unacceptable for RQ (R(2) = 0.3), Gox, and Fox (R(2) = 0.2). In vitro simulation experiments showed monitor-dependent interferences for VCO2 and VO2 as follows: 1) within series, nonlinear and variable deviations of monitor readouts at different exchange rates; 2) between series, differences and unsteady variability; and 3) differences in individual monitor characteristics (eg, rate dependence, stability, imprecision). The introduction of the postcalorimetric recalibration by ICcE resulted in an adjustment of gas exchange rates and the derived metabolic variables with reasonable correlations (R(2) > 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Differential, metabolic, monitor-specific deviations are the primary determinants for lack of accuracy, comparability, and transferability of results. This problem can be overcome by the present postcalorimetric ICcE procedure.
Authors: Thomas S Voss; Mikkel H Vendelbo; Ulla Kampmann; Steen B Pedersen; Thomas S Nielsen; Mogens Johannsen; Mads V Svart; Niels Jessen; Niels Møller Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Kirsi-Marja Zitting; Nina Vujovic; Robin K Yuan; Cheryl M Isherwood; Jacob E Medina; Wei Wang; Orfeu M Buxton; Jonathan S Williams; Charles A Czeisler; Jeanne F Duffy Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2018-11-08 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: Sabine Kahl; Bettina Nowotny; Simon Piepel; Peter J Nowotny; Klaus Strassburger; Christian Herder; Giovanni Pacini; Michael Roden Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Theresia Sarabhai; Sabine Kahl; Julia Szendroedi; Daniel F Markgraf; Oana-Patricia Zaharia; Cristina Barosa; Christian Herder; Frithjof Wickrath; Pavel Bobrov; Jong-Hee Hwang; John Griffith Jones; Michael Roden Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2020-05-21
Authors: Bettina Nowotny; Lejla Zahiragic; Alessandra Bierwagen; Stefan Kabisch; Jan B Groener; Peter J Nowotny; Ann Kristin Fleitmann; Christian Herder; Giovanni Pacini; Iris Erlund; Rikard Landberg; Hans-Ulrich Haering; Andreas F H Pfeiffer; Peter P Nawroth; Michael Roden Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Juan M A Alcantara; Guillermo Sanchez-Delgado; Lucas Jurado-Fasoli; Jose E Galgani; Idoia Labayen; Jonatan R Ruiz Journal: Eur J Nutr Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 4.865
Authors: Sangkyu Kim; David A Welsh; Eric Ravussin; Michael A Welsch; Katie E Cherry; Leann Myers; S Michal Jazwinski Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2013-10-25 Impact factor: 6.053