Literature DB >> 31423668

Use of Predictive Equations for Energy Prescription Results in Inaccurate Estimation in Trauma Patients.

Georgia Vasileiou1, Sinong Qian1, Rahul Iyengar2, Michelle B Mulder1, Lindsey M Gass3, Jonathan Parks1, Gerd D Pust1, Rishi Rattan1, Edward Lineen1, Patricia Byers1, D Dante Yeh1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Overfeeding and underfeeding are associated with poor clinical outcomes. In the absence of indirect calorimetry (IC), the Society of Critical Care Medicine/ASPEN recommend prescribing 25-30 kcal/kg. The Harris-Benedict equation (HBE) multiplied by a stress factor is commonly applied in critically ill patients. We describe the difference between estimated and actual energy needs in critically injured patients.
METHODS: From March to November 2018, we collected demographics and energy needs determined by continuous IC (started within 4 days) in intubated adults. Ideal or adjusted body weight was used for 25-30 kcal/kg, and HBE was multiplied by a 1.3 stress factor (1.3HBE). Daily requirements up to 14 days, extubation, or death were calculated using all 3 methods and compared with IC.
RESULTS: Fifty-five subjects were included. Median age was 38 [27-58] years, 38 (69%) were male, body mass index was 28 [25-33] kg/m2 , and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 17 [14-24] Mechanism of injury was blunt (38, 69%), penetrating (9, 16%), and burn (8, 15%). By day 14, compared with measured energy requirements by IC, the other methods could result in a cumulative 1827-kcal (+7%) surplus (1.3HBE), a 1313-kcal (-5%) deficit (25 kcal/kg), or a 3950-kcal (+14%) surplus (30 kcal/kg) per patient over a median 9 days.
CONCLUSION: In critically injured patients, predictive equations for energy needs do not account for dynamic metabolic changes over time and could result in underfeeding or overfeeding. Adjusting daily prescription based on continuous IC may result in better individualized treatment.
© 2019 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.

Entities:  

Keywords:  critical care; critical illness; energy requirements; indirect calorimetry; trauma

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31423668     DOI: 10.1002/ncp.10372

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


  3 in total

1.  Penn State equation versus indirect calorimetry for nutritional assessment in patients with traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Sonia Wu; Sameena Iqbal; Melanie Giroux; Norine Alam; Josie Campisi; Tarek Razek; Dan Deckelbaum; Jeremy Grushka; Katherine McKendy; Evan Wong; Judith Marcoux; Kosar A Khwaja
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 2.840

Review 2.  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

3.  Measured Energy Expenditure Using Indirect Calorimetry in Post-Intensive Care Unit Hospitalized Survivors: A Comparison with Predictive Equations.

Authors:  Anne-Françoise Rousseau; Marjorie Fadeur; Camille Colson; Benoit Misset
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-09-25       Impact factor: 6.706

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.