Literature DB >> 26703959

Clinical Guide for the Use of Metabolic Carts: Indirect Calorimetry--No Longer the Orphan of Energy Estimation.

Pierre Singer1, Joelle Singer2.   

Abstract

Critically ill patients often require nutrition support, but accurately determining energy needs in these patients is difficult. Energy expenditure is affected by patient characteristics such as weight, height, age, and sex but is also influenced by factors such as body temperature, nutrition support, sepsis, sedation, and therapies. Using predictive equations to estimate energy needs is known to be inaccurate. Therefore, indirect calorimetry measurement is considered the gold standard to evaluate energy needs in clinical practice. This review defines the indications, limitations, and pitfalls of this technique and gives practice suggestions in various clinical situations.
© 2015 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.

Entities:  

Keywords:  calories; energy expenditure; energy intake; energy metabolism; indirect calorimetry

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26703959     DOI: 10.1177/0884533615622536

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract        ISSN: 0884-5336            Impact factor:   3.080


  11 in total

1.  Focus on nutrition.

Authors:  Pierre Singer; Giuseppe Citerio; Gordon Doig
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Throwing darts in ICU: how close are we in estimating energy requirements?

Authors:  Laryssa Grguric; Lisa Musillo; Jody C DiGiacomo; Swapna Munnangi
Journal:  Trauma Surg Acute Care Open       Date:  2020-09-17

3.  Do we need different predictive equations for the acute and late phases of critical illness? A prospective observational study with repeated indirect calorimetry measurements.

Authors:  Pei Chien Tah; Bee Koon Poh; Chee Cheong Kee; Zheng-Yii Lee; Vineya-Rai Hakumat-Rai; Mohd Basri Mat Nor; Mazuin Kamarul Zaman; Hazreen Abdul Majid; M Shahnaz Hasan
Journal:  Eur J Clin Nutr       Date:  2021-08-30       Impact factor: 4.884

Review 4.  Are Predictive Energy Expenditure Equations Accurate in Cirrhosis?

Authors:  Tannaz Eslamparast; Benjamin Vandermeer; Maitreyi Raman; Leah Gramlich; Vanessa Den Heyer; Dawn Belland; Mang Ma; Puneeta Tandon
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2019-02-04       Impact factor: 5.717

5.  Resting Energy Expenditure during Breastfeeding: Body Composition Analysis vs. Predictive Equations Based on Anthropometric Parameters.

Authors:  Agnieszka Bzikowska-Jura; Adriana Szulińska; Dorota Szostak-Węgierek
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-04-30       Impact factor: 5.717

Review 6.  Energy expenditure and indirect calorimetry in critical illness and convalescence: current evidence and practical considerations.

Authors:  Hanneke Pierre Franciscus Xaverius Moonen; Karin Josephina Hubertina Beckers; Arthur Raymond Hubert van Zanten
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2021-01-12

Review 7.  Methodological Aspects of Indirect Calorimetry in Patients with Sepsis-Possibilities and Limitations.

Authors:  Weronika Wasyluk; Agnieszka Zwolak; Joop Jonckheer; Elisabeth De Waele; Wojciech Dąbrowski
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 5.717

Review 8.  Energy requirements for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Authors:  Ryan Burslem; Kimberly Gottesman; Melanie Newkirk; Jane Ziegler
Journal:  Nutr Clin Pract       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 3.204

Review 9.  Indirect Calorimetry in Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Marta Delsoglio; Najate Achamrah; Mette M Berger; Claude Pichard
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 4.241

10.  Network-Based Selection of Candidate Markers and Assays to Assess the Impact of Oral Immune Interventions on Gut Functions.

Authors:  Marjolein Meijerink; Tim J van den Broek; Remon Dulos; Jossie Garthoff; Léon Knippels; Karen Knipping; Lucien Harthoorn; Geert Houben; Lars Verschuren; Jolanda van Bilsen
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2019-11-13       Impact factor: 7.561

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.