Literature DB >> 24485773

Evaluation of three indirect calorimetry devices in mechanically ventilated patients: which device compares best with the Deltatrac II(®)? A prospective observational study.

Séverine Graf1, Véronique Laurie Karsegard2, Valérie Viatte3, Claudia Paula Heidegger4, Yvan Fleury5, Claude Pichard6, Laurence Genton7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Indirect calorimetry (IC) is the gold standard to measure energy expenditure (EE) in hospitalized patients. The popular 30 year-old Deltatrac II(®) (Datex) IC is no more commercialized, but other manufacturers have developed new devices. This study aims at comparing for the first time simultaneously, two new IC, the CCM express(®) (Medgraphics) and the Quark RMR(®) (Cosmed) with the Deltatrac II(®) to assess their potential use in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
METHODS: ICU patients on mechanical ventilation, with positive end-expiratory pressure <9 cm H2O and fraction of inspired oxygen <60%, underwent measurements by the three IC simultaneously connected during 20 min to the ventilator (Evita XL(®), Dräger). Patients' characteristics, VO2 consumption, VCO2 production, respiratory quotient and EE were recorded. Data were presented as mean (SD) and compared by linear regression, repeated measure one-way ANOVA and Bland &amp; Altman diagrams.
RESULTS: Forty patients (23 males, 60(17) yrs, BMI 25.4(7.0) kg/m(2)) were included. For the Deltatrac II(®), VO2 was 227(61) ml/min, VCO2 189(52) ml/min and EE 1562(412) kcal/d. VO2, VCO2, and EE differed significantly between Deltatrac II(®) and CCM express(®) (p < 0.001), but not between Deltatrac II(®) and Quark RMR(®). For EE, diagrams showed a mean difference (2SD) of 25.2(441) kcal between Deltatrac II(®) vs. the Quark RMR(®), and -273 (532) kcal between Deltatrac II(®) vs CCM express(®).
CONCLUSION: Quark RMR(®) compares better with Deltatrac II(®) than CCM express(®), but it suffers an EE variance of 441 kcal, which is not acceptable for clinical practice. New indirect IC should be further improved before recommending their clinical use in ICU.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Energy expenditure; Indirect calorimetry; Intensive care unit; Mechanical ventilation

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24485773     DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2014.01.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Nutr        ISSN: 0261-5614            Impact factor:   7.324


  23 in total

1.  Early goal-directed nutrition versus standard of care in adult intensive care patients: the single-centre, randomised, outcome assessor-blinded EAT-ICU trial.

Authors:  Matilde Jo Allingstrup; Jens Kondrup; Jørgen Wiis; Casper Claudius; Ulf Gøttrup Pedersen; Rikke Hein-Rasmussen; Mads Rye Bjerregaard; Morten Steensen; Tom Hartvig Jensen; Theis Lange; Martin Bruun Madsen; Morten Hylander Møller; Anders Perner
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  The association between dietary polyphenol intake and cardiometabolic factors in overweight and obese women: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Yasaman Aali; Sara Ebrahimi; Farideh Shiraseb; Khadijeh Mirzaei
Journal:  BMC Endocr Disord       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 3.263

3.  Methods for Estimating Energy Expenditure in Critically Ill Adults.

Authors:  Makayla Cordoza; Lingtak-Neander Chan; Elizabeth Bridges; Hilaire Thompson
Journal:  AACN Adv Crit Care       Date:  2020-09-15

4.  Point-Counterpoint: Indirect Calorimetry Is Essential for Optimal Nutrition Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit.

Authors:  Paul E Wischmeyer; Jeroen Molinger; Krista Haines
Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 3.080

Review 5.  Indirect calorimetry in critical illness: a new standard of care?

Authors:  Elisabeth De Waele; Joop Jonckheer; Paul E Wischmeyer
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2021-08-01       Impact factor: 3.359

Review 6.  Parenteral nutrition: never say never.

Authors:  Taku Oshima; Claude Pichard
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 9.097

7.  When more is better.

Authors:  Claude Pichard
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 8.  Metabolic and nutritional support of critically ill patients: consensus and controversies.

Authors:  Jean-Charles Preiser; Arthur R H van Zanten; Mette M Berger; Gianni Biolo; Michael P Casaer; Gordon S Doig; Richard D Griffiths; Daren K Heyland; Michael Hiesmayr; Gaetano Iapichino; Alessandro Laviano; Claude Pichard; Pierre Singer; Greet Van den Berghe; Jan Wernerman; Paul Wischmeyer; Jean-Louis Vincent
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 9.  Overcoming challenges to enteral nutrition delivery in critical care.

Authors:  Paul E Wischmeyer
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.687

10.  Body cell mass evaluation in critically ill patients: killing two birds with one stone.

Authors:  Enrico Fiaccadori; Santo Morabito; Aderville Cabassi; Giuseppe Regolisti
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 9.097

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.